Preparing for 2.6.0 beta

[Mojca Miklavec]

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 03:38, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2019, at 23:20, Joshua Root wrote:
>
> > On 2019-8-25 03:00 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> >> Would it be possible to set up at least one builder with 10.6 running
> >> MacPorts master, building all ports with libc++ (apparently default by
> >> now in master), just not uploading the archives to the public site, or
> >> potentially uploading them to a 10.6 subfolder? That is, instead of
> >> putting the file under
> >>    http://packages.macports.org/clang-3.4/clang-3.4-3.4.2_12.darwin_10.x86_64.tbz2
> >> we would put it under
> >>    http://packages.macports.org/10.6/clang-3.4/clang-3.4-3.4.2_12.darwin_10.x86_64.tbz2
> >> or something else than 10.6 (darwin10.x86_64, 10.6.x86_64, ...).
> >>
> >> That way we could at least have all the packages ready by the time
> >> when we do the switch.
> >
> > I guess that depends on how much time Ryan has to work on this.
>
> In my opinion, it would have been a good idea to develop a plan for having the archives for libc++ on older systems at different URLs (either subdirectories or different archive filenames). That way, we could have deployed new builders to build the libc++ archives for older systems prior to the release, so that they would be available at release.
>
> However, since Joshua decided to flip the switch for libc++ on older systems without such a plan being in place, we won't have archives for libc++ on older systems available at release of 2.6.0, and users will just have to wait for the builds to finish or build things themselves.

I would certainly not back out from the changes.
But if you Ryan have time to set up at least one virtual builder for
10.6 running the RC (ideally three, but one would already make a huge
difference), the files could be placed to a different location
immediately from the buildbot server, and we could at least give it a
bit of a headstart as I expect various troubles.

I guess the release could wait for a small number of days, and during
that time we could still get quite some important ports built, and fix
some major issues that will pop up in any case, and it's better to fix
them sooner than later.

If this could be done quickly, we could still add something like "if
OS X < 10.9 and x86_64, then fetch binaries from a different location"
to the macports base.

Out of curiosity: since the binaries will have to change, but names
won't - how will our buildbot setup even behave? I expect that for the
start, unless we delete all the existing 10.6 packages from the
server, many packages won't even be rebuilt if we "force build" them,
since the file will be found on the server. And even if it will get
rebuilt: will it be replaced on the server with the new one?

I also expect quite some performance issues because the full compiler
chain will need to be deactivated for every single trivial port, but
that's not as critical (as long as we don't run into bootstrapping
issues for each cycle).

Mojca