From Newsgroup: muc.lists.freebsd.stable

Kurt Jaeger <pi_at_freebsd.org> wrote on
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 11:31:22 UTC :

So, should

pkg upgrade

on a ALPHA5 system provide the update ? If no, what do I need
to do to upgrade from ALPHA5 to BETA1 ?

I've tested it and no BETA1 packages were available ?

FreeBSD-base: {
url: "pkg+https://pkg.FreeBSD.org/${ABI}/base_latest",

For release builds, including BETA* builds:

url: "pkg+https://pkg.FreeBSD.org/${ABI}/base_release_0",

An example is:

https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:aarch64/base_release_0/


Colin P.:

I suggest that future announcements also indicate how to
specify the url for pkgbase with pkg for whatever type
of distribution it is (here BETA*).

mirror_type: "srv",
signature_type: "fingerprints",
fingerprints: "/usr/share/keys/pkg",
enabled: yes
}

Browsing:

https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:amd64/base_latest/

shows

FreeBSD*.15.snap20251011* packages

but those are not seen as valid for upgrade from *15.0.a4* from pkg ?

Details . . .

There is now, for example, various:

https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:*/base_release_0/

with package names ending in:

-15.0.b1.202510*.pkg

for BETA1. (The encooded timestamp varies across
platforms.)


I'll note that, for aarch64, despite:

https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-stable/2025-October/003383.html

reporting:

QUOTE
Images for 15.0-BETA1 aarch64 GENERIC did not build for reasons which have already been diagnosed.
END QUOTE

https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:aarch64/base_release_0/

has been populated.


===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com



--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-admin@muc.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: muc.lists.freebsd.stable

Hi!

Kurt Jaeger <pi_at_freebsd.org> wrote on
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 11:31:22 UTC :

So, should

pkg upgrade

on a ALPHA5 system provide the update ? If no, what do I need
to do to upgrade from ALPHA5 to BETA1 ?

I've tested it and no BETA1 packages were available ?

FreeBSD-base: {
url: "pkg+https://pkg.FreeBSD.org/${ABI}/base_latest",

For release builds, including BETA* builds:

url: "pkg+https://pkg.FreeBSD.org/${ABI}/base_release_0",

An example is:

https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:aarch64/base_release_0/

Ah, oh! Works!
--
pi@FreeBSD.org +49 171 3101372 Now what ?


--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-admin@muc.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: muc.lists.freebsd.stable

On 10/12/25 08:24, Mark Millard wrote:

Kurt Jaeger <pi_at_freebsd.org> wrote on
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 11:31:22 UTC :

So, should

pkg upgrade

on a ALPHA5 system provide the update ? If no, what do I need
to do to upgrade from ALPHA5 to BETA1 ?

I've tested it and no BETA1 packages were available ?

FreeBSD-base: {
url: "pkg+https://pkg.FreeBSD.org/${ABI}/base_latest",

For release builds, including BETA* builds:

url: "pkg+https://pkg.FreeBSD.org/${ABI}/base_release_0",

An example is:

https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:aarch64/base_release_0/

Colin P.:

I suggest that future announcements also indicate how to
specify the url for pkgbase with pkg for whatever type
of distribution it is (here BETA*).

Yeah, we're working on it. Currently blocked on setting up an HSM for
signing of the builds performed by the release engineering team.

The rolling builds on pkg.freebsd.org are useful of course but they're
not quite the same thing -- they'll give you "whatever releng/15.0 is today" rather than specifically 15.0-BETA1. (Also, they're signed using the pkg keys.)

My plan right now is to have (taking BETA2 as an example)

https://pkgbase.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:aarch64/base_release_0_beta2/

which is the exact bits shipped as 15.0-BETA2, and

https://pkgbase.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:aarch64/base_release_0/

which is the latest beta/rc (pre-release) or the release plus any
security updates (post-release).

The installer will point at the appropriate /base_release_0_foo/ directory
so that you get identical bits when you install 15.0-BETA2 regardless of whether you use the bootonly, disc1, or dvd install images, but the config
file on live systems will point at /base_release_0/.

Does that make sense?
--
Colin Percival
FreeBSD Release Engineering Lead & EC2 platform maintainer
Founder, Tarsnap | www.tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid



--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-admin@muc.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: muc.lists.freebsd.stable

On Oct 12, 2025, at 13:04, Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> wrote:

On 10/12/25 08:24, Mark Millard wrote:

Kurt Jaeger <pi_at_freebsd.org> wrote on
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 11:31:22 UTC :

So, should

pkg upgrade

on a ALPHA5 system provide the update ? If no, what do I need
to do to upgrade from ALPHA5 to BETA1 ?

I've tested it and no BETA1 packages were available ?

FreeBSD-base: {
url: "pkg+https://pkg.FreeBSD.org/${ABI}/base_latest",

For release builds, including BETA* builds:
url: "pkg+https://pkg.FreeBSD.org/${ABI}/base_release_0",
An example is:
https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:aarch64/base_release_0/
Colin P.:
I suggest that future announcements also indicate how to
specify the url for pkgbase with pkg for whatever type
of distribution it is (here BETA*).

Yeah, we're working on it. Currently blocked on setting up an HSM for signing of the builds performed by the release engineering team.

The rolling builds on pkg.freebsd.org are useful of course but they're
not quite the same thing -- they'll give you "whatever releng/15.0 is today" rather than specifically 15.0-BETA1. (Also, they're signed using the pkg keys.)

My plan right now is to have (taking BETA2 as an example)

https://pkgbase.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:aarch64/base_release_0_beta2/

which is the exact bits shipped as 15.0-BETA2,

Ahh. Okay. ( *-15.0.b2.*.pkg future naming convention? )

and

https://pkgbase.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:15:aarch64/base_release_0/

which is the latest beta/rc (pre-release) or the release plus any
security updates (post-release).

( *-15.0.releng.*.pkg future naming convention? )

The installer will point at the appropriate /base_release_0_foo/ directory
so that you get identical bits when you install 15.0-BETA2 regardless of whether you use the bootonly, disc1, or dvd install images, but the config file on live systems will point at /base_release_0/.

Good to know. Making the *.pkg file names indicate the
distinction could be useful.

Does that make sense?

It not always clear what range of aspects of things
are BETA status. Thanks for giving a better idea
about that for the existing status of things.
My note was more targeted (for now) at pointing to
what you would like folks to test that are just trying
to update for testing via use of pkg. (Me: I'm staying
with stable/15 no matter what you want. But some folks
will probably target use of your most official recent
materials.) During BETA what you point folks to may not
meet all the criteria that eventually need to be met.
Any note about the url can have words about the
limited status (setting expectations) or indications
of who should avoid use of the url if you want limited
use.
Side note:
I noticed that only *-amd64-* and *-riscv64-* got
*memstick.* based naming. [But that might be in
part because of the aarch64 problem(s) that lead
to the missing files.]
===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com
--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-admin@muc.de
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2