On 2021-Feb-23, at 18:08, Chris <bsd-lists at BSDforge.com> wrote: > On 2021-02-23 17:42, Mark Millard wrote: >> (Warner is only CC'd here.) >> Warner Losh imp at bsdimp.com wrote on >> Wed Feb 24 01:04:13 UTC 2021 : >>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 4:51 PM Chris <bsd-lists at bsdforge.com> wrote: >>> > Given this is a pkg(8) error, I brought it up on ports@ >>> > but it was suggested I (also?) bring it up here on stable@ >>> > >>> > OK awhile back I installed a copy of 12 stable from the >>> > usb stick image. I tweaked it to my wishes then got called >>> > away and haven't been able to get back to it until the other >>> > day. This is still a fresh install which has a populated /usr/src. >>> > So I >>> > svnlite co svn://svn.freebsd.org/ports/head /usr/ports >>> > followed by a >>> > cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg/ && make install clean >>> > which returns >>> > make >>> > /!\ ERROR: /!\ >>> > >>> > Ports Collection support for your FreeBSD version has ended, and no ports >>> > are >>> > guaranteed to build on this syst >>> em. Please upgrade to a supported release. >>> > >>> > No support will be provided if you silence this message by defining >>> > ALLOW_UNSUPPORTED_SYSTEM. >>> > >>> > *** Error code 1 >>> > >>> > Stop. >>> > Err what? Ok while I think this was from stable 12.1, it's still still 12, >>> > and it's on stable. So what gives? >>> > >>> 12.1 has reached EOL now that 12.2 has been out a while. >>> From release/12.1.0/ : >> "Tag releng/12.1@r354233 as release/12.1.0 (12.1-RELEASE)" >> I think that implicit in Warner's response is that >> versions of stable/12/ that are not after r354233 are >> also EOL. One needs to have stable/12/ material from >> after -r354233 in order for it to be supported. >> He might even mean that stable/12/ material from before: >> "Tag releng/12.2@r366954 as release/12.2.0 (12.2-RELEASE)" >> would also be considered as not supported. >> To be safe you should be using stable/12/ material from >> on or after -r366954 in order to have a supported >> context. >> (I'm not sure if anything is explicit about the status >> of stable/12/ material between releng/12.1@r354233 >> and releng/12.2@r366954 .) > A HUGE thanks for all of this, Mark. This is EXACTLY what I needed. > > # uname -apKU > FreeBSD fbsd12dev 12.1-STABLE FreeBSD 12.1-STABLE r363918 GENERIC amd64 > amd64 1201522 1201522 > which pretty well confirms what you deduced. > I'm still a bit confused. It seems to me that it didn't _used_ > to be that way. But my brain isn't using ECC. So a couple of > bits may be flipped.
The implication of all of stable/12/ being supported would be support of stable/12/ from on or after its creation: QUOTE Revision 339434 - Directory Listing Modified Fri Oct 19 00:09:24 2018 UTC (2 years, 4 months ago) by gjb Copied from: head revision 339432 Copy head@r339432 to stable/12 as part of the 12.0-RELEASE cycle. Additional post-branch commits will follow. END QUOTE Such does not seem likely to me. What would be the point of dropping 12.0-RELEASE support and 12.1-RELEASE support if such stable/12/ history was covered, some of that history being minor variations on the 12.0-RELEASE or 12.1-RELEASE ? Note: Despite some claims in other messages, svn -r363918 is not 12.1-RELEASE ( not -r354233 ) and -r363918 is shown as (only) in stable/12/ by svn. Your claim of 12-STABLE was correct, just not detailed enough. === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com ( dsl-only.net went away in early 2018-Mar) _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
