Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:14:05 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org>, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net> Subject: Re: svn error during 'make buildkernel'? Message-ID: <201308081114.05978.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20130806183054.GB2190@glenbarber.us> References: <20130803210348.GA715@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20130806181107.GR34979@over-yonder.net> <20130806183054.GB2190@glenbarber.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 2:30:54 pm Glen Barber wrote: > On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 01:11:07PM -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 08:55:30PM -0400 I heard the voice of > > Glen Barber, and lo! it spake thus: > > > > > > The error generated is non-fatal, and once I receive response on a > > > proposed patch, will be suppressed if the svn version used to check > > > out the tree is not compatible with that used to check the version > > > of the tree with the kernel build. > > > > But not try the ports svn as well? I mean, as breakage goes, it's not > > even in the top 100; I'd _much_ rather have a kernel that I have to > > guess the revision of but boots, than one properly recorded that > > doesn't. But it's still unpleasant, and is one of those things you > > probably won't notice missing until suddenly you need it. > > > > And this isn't just a presentism. Sure, right _now_ devel/subversion > > and base svnlite get along, but what happens when ports moves to 1.9 > > which changes the WT format? Even if -CURRENT src gets upgraded > > simultaneously[0], the same surely can't be said of every back branch. > > > > I realize this is all still a WIP, and please don't read any anger > > into my words. But this _has_ been something I've found a little > > worrisome since the original import/newvers change. Heck, newvers can > > show me version info if I'm getting my source tree from git or p4, but > > can't handle ports svn? By the time this works its way into a stable > > branch, I really think it should either handle svnversion from ports > > as well, or come with a big bright flashing warning that using svn > > from anything but base svnlite for /usr/src is a degraded experience. > > > > > > [0] Which still wouldn't really fix things, since > > /usr/bin/svnliteversion is arbitrarily old, not up to date with > > the source tree. > > > > I have this on my todo list, but right now I have bigger things to deal > with. As soon as I can, I will fix the logic. Right now, it is not "as > easy as checking which svn works", because the more I look at the logic > for newvers.sh, the more I dislike how it all works. BTW, I was totally surprised by this recent error on my laptop which still has 1.7 installed. I don't rebuild ports all the time because it's a PITA. I think the fact that svnliteversion is used in preference to svnversion is a huge POLA violation and completely agree with Steve on this one. It shouldn't be that hard to just check $? and fallback to svnliteversion if svnversion fails. I have much more complex hacks in place at work where we have active 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8 clients. :( -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201308081114.05978.jhb>