Re: Status of revivesa

[Greg Oster <oster%cs.usask.ca@localhost>]

Izumi Tsutsui writes:
> tls%rek.tjls.com@localhost wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 09:16:30PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > > 
> > > How many users will actually be screwed seriously with SA,
> > > rather than pleased by advantages on other features?
> > 
> > Anyone who naively expects a 3.x or 4.x chroot environment to work.
> > Unfortunately, important things like named were linked to the
> > SA libpthread for *two* major releases...
> 
> I don't ask who is, but asking tradeoff against other new features.
> 
> How many users will require both 5.0 kernel and
> chroot old environments with pthread binaries?
> 
> Why won't they update named while they do their kernels?
> pthread support for named has been disabled in both netbsd-3 and netbsd-4.
> 
> Are chroot environments confirmed working with revivesa? Not yet.

The chrooted part is a bit of a red herring...  I have production 
boxes running 3.0 that I'd like to upgrade to 5.0 with minimal fuss. 
That means dropping in a 5.0 kernel (and leaving the 3.0 userland) and 
having things Just Work(*) for some testing period (ranging from days 
to weeks).  Only after that, if things work well, does userland get 
upgraded.  And then it may be some time after that before packages 
themselves are updated.  NetBSD has always supported this sort of
"controlled upgrade path", and it would be more than a shame to lose 
that ability.

Later...

Greg Oster

(*)Ok, ipfilter and, more recently, pf, havn't played nicely in this 
regard, but they are definitely the exception.