sorry, i didn't mean to accept this revision, so i'm changing my vote to requesting changes, but i'm currently fairly ambivalent on this aside from my previous concern.

In D53077#1282396, @brd wrote:

How would BSDINSTALL_PKG_REPOS_DIR ever in the normal FreeBSD Release media contain anything else?

In D55538#1281960, @royger wrote:

Attempt to fix the QEMU segfault.

sunpoet does not react to reviews. You need to create a Bugzilla issue.

Thanks for the patch!
Approved.

Reasonable !

Note that dangerous_ld_env is never reset back to false.

More uses for rtld_recalc_bind_not().

In D56070#1282531, @ivy wrote:

i have a strong preference for using SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH here, if possible: it will avoid conflicting with some other pkgbase work i'm doing, and more generally seems like a cleaner solution as anything that needs that can easily consume it; this is information that should be generally available to the build system.

i have a strong preference for using SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH here, if possible: it will avoid conflicting with some other pkgbase work i'm doing, and more generally seems like a cleaner solution as anything that needs that can easily consume it; this is information that should be generally available to the build system.

Handle recalculations second-order effects.

In D56070#1282516, @kevans wrote:

Specify the modification time (mtime) of the files to match SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH rather than the current time when creating packages.

Can you spell out a little more clearly in the commit message why pkg's automatic SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH usage isn't sufficient here, please? By all accounts it seems like this should be a nop, so I guess it's that SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH isn't exported into pkg's environment in these targets?

(I think you can probably make an argument for .export SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH and a lot of these SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=$(SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH) assignments can probably disappear, but maybe that's a discussion for another day)

Specify the modification time (mtime) of the files to match SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH rather than the current time when creating packages.

In D55884#1281583, @pouria wrote:

Address @melifaro comments.
You're right, I was mistaken.
I was thinking of style(9) and assumed we still declare variables at the top of functions, but that's no longer true.
Thank you for your time and review.

Do call on_update()

In D38362#1282401, @glebius wrote:

I'd like to revert this revision. I think the logic of clearing local address at the protocol level makes sense. It is feature of UDP, not of any protocol, that local address is cleared on disconnect. As you noted this code can be tracked down to pre-FreeBSD times.

For example, for TCP we want a disconnected socket to return previously used local address with getsockname(). The TCP has successfully evaded that by not calling in_pcbdisconnect() and calling in_pcbdetach() in the very old code and in_pcbdrop() in the newer code. In my current branch I have TCP started to use in_pcbdisconnect(), however it still evades clearing of local address for a different reason.

The other thing I'm about to do in branch is to make raw IP to make more use of the generic inpcb code. Yep, decided to give up with trees and follow your advice. So, raw IP starts to use in_pcbdisconnect(). For raw IP it is more than getsockname()! A raw socket may be bound with bind(2) and then connect(2)ed, and then disconnected, e.g. connect(INADDR_ANY). So, when we run raw IP socket through in_pcbdisconnect() we don't want to lose local address.