Subject: Re: errors: build.sh on FreeBSD
To: David C. Myers <email@example.com>
From: Steven M. Bellovin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/24/2004 23:10:38
In message <email@example.com>, "David C. Myers" wr
>On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 19:13, Luke Mewburn wrote:
>> Whilst cross-platform builds are important, I wouldn't consider
>> them to be bugs critical enough to require backporting the fixes
>> to older release branches.
>I'd understand this statement, except that 1.6.2 is in the *future*.
>It's not an "older release branch"...! ;-)
I think there's some confusion here. Every time there's a formal
release -- 1.5, 1.6, 2.0 (which isn't out yet, of course), the tree is
"branched". The release branch gets bug fixes and comparatively minor
enhancements that are back-ported from the development branch. Larger
pieces may be back-ported if someone is willing to do the work *and* if
those pieces don't break compatibility. 1.6.2 is part of the 1.6
branch; that entire branch is "older" than the development tree
leading towards 2.0.
That sort of generalization is always true, given the definition of
releases; in this particular case, it's even more true, because 1.6.2
is probably quite close. (When I run 'uname -a' on a kernel built from
the head of the 1.6 branch, it says "1.6.2", and not "1.6.1_RCn".)
>Anyway, the picture is becoming clearer. I'll summarize: The whole
>cross-building build.sh infrastructure was supposed to work in 1.6, but
>it doesn't quite. For various complicated reasons, the fixes to make it
>work will only show up in 2.0.
It's not clear to me that it was supposed to work in 1.6, but there
were a lot of changes to that stuff in -current.
>However, assuming I was willing to put up with the long build times on
>my Sparc 5 routerwall box, I could continue to use the "netbsd-1-6" tag
>to pull in the fixes along 1.6.2, 1.6.3, and so on. I just can't build
>those releases from FreeBSD.
Or install from the binary distributions.
>Sorry for the fuss. I actually got a number of "me too" emails on the
>side wondering about these same questions, so there are plenty of us out
>there who stand a bit confused by the NetBSD build situation.
>Oh, I guess one last question: is current stable enough to use as a
Your mileage may vary -- for me, -current took a major step forward
about three weeks ago. Any daily snapshot may have trouble, but at
this point I'm contemplating upgrading some of my major machines to
-current. (I have four 1.6.2 machines and one -current machine.)
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb