On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 10:04:15 -0000 (UTC) "Peter 'PMc' Much" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2025-08-29, Warner Losh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This is harder and introduces a git dependency to the loader process. The > > kernel has this, true. And hg, svn, gitup and a few others. It's a mess > > that I'd rather not have since the loader is built a dozen times, not once > > like the kernel, and any slowdown when one of the above scms misbehaves is > > greater. > > There are more problems with that approach: The git hash changes > whenever you add a local patch (for whatever), and therefore becomes > useless, unless you also figure out the hash of the last official > commit (which is not so trivial). > Also, there is no real need for the SCM to still exist at all during > buildworld. > > BTW, I'm not sure if one would want to run -STABLE in production > (which is kind of a moving target). I for my part prefer to just > fetch relevant patches from STABLE and put them onto the RELEASE > source (as local need arises). > So as far as the loader is concerned, my sources should know a > distinct _FreeBSD_version, but they do not know the correct n number > or git hash. > > cheers, > PMc The mis-match in n-numbers between person by person is what I fear and the main reason I wanted separate database. https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-stable/2025-August/003088.html -- Tomoaki AOKI <[email protected]>
