Re: 9.0 is getting old...

[David Brownlee <abs%absd.org@localhost>]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 at 00:47, Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> wrote:
>
> "J. Lewis Muir" <jlmuir%imca-cat.org@localhost> writes:
>
> > On 06/07, Greg Troxel wrote:
> >>   I see pkgsrc as supporting 9.x, not 9.0
> >
> > Not saying you're wrong in thinking that pkgsrc should be supporting
> > and targeting 9.x instead of 9.0, but this seems different from what
> > I thought was being targeted, so it would be great if that could be
> > documented somewhere.
>
> Well, pkgsrc is the source code, and we try to have packages build
> everywhere, but people fix what they fix.
>
> Here, I was sloppy in wording, and this is "binary packages built by
> TNF" which has two subcategories, packages built on TNF-owned machines
> (x86, arm) and packages built by individuals (lots of retro and
> semi-retro arches).
>
> I do have a bias that anyone running a branch of NetBSD should track
> that branch, and that running 9.0 is no longer a reasonable thing to do.
> So I care much more about a good outcome for 9.3/9.4 than 9.0.
>
> We do tend to use the .0 for the builders, unless it is trouble.
>
> >>   I do not expect binary packages built on 9.3 to be troubled on 9.0.
> >>   The theory is that we have binary compatibility.
> >
> > I don't understand this statement.  Say a new function were added to
> > a 9.3 userland library that didn't exist in 9.0, and a pkgsrc package
> > that used that new function were built against a 9.3 userland, then
> > the resulting pkgsrc binary or library wouldn't work on a 9.0 userland
> > because the function that was added to 9.3 doesn't exist in 9.0.
>
> Technically you are right if there was an ABI addition.  But we try not
> to do that either; it's mostly fixes and new drivers/devices in the
> kernel.
>
> There is no truly great answer here; every approach is going to bother
> somebody.

Some options
1) For at least amd64 we could build 9.0 and 9.2 packages, so 9.0 and
9.1 have the "best available" likewise 9.2
2) Orphan 9.0 and 9.1 binary package dirs and just keep updating 9.2 +
3) Build on 9.2 and provide a minimal patchkit tar for the missing
files on 9.0/9.1
4) Build on 9.2 and just tell people on 9.0 & 9.1 they must update

I'd be inclined towards 2). but 4) suggests something I'll open in a
different thread.

David