In D40366#1076183, @brnrd wrote:

In D40366#1076061, @ngie wrote:

Install the dbm module for OPTIONS_SET+= BDB1 to unbreak uses of the dbm submodule.

Not used phabricator for a good while (last was before svn->git?)... WebUI doesn't want to update this rev.

I think I've cracked it, the plist breakage and all. Check [https://brnrd.eu/bsd/patch-devel_apr1-D40366]
Basically:

1. --with-dbm hints for configure to speed up bdb detection
2. Switch to PLIST_SUB with BERKELEYDB for all BDB versions

Database creation using httxt2dbm works with all 3 BDB versions:

❯ file test-*.dbm
test-base.dbm: Berkeley DB 1.85 (Hash, version 2, native byte-order)
test-db18.dbm: Berkeley DB (Hash, version 10, native byte-order)
test-db5.dbm:  Berkeley DB (Hash, version 9, native byte-order)

Would love to switch default to base, but that'll trip up people that have existing databases.

In D46806#1067801, @kevans wrote:

In D46806#1067666, @ngie wrote:

Could you please demo the test program (attach the kyua html report)?

Neat, I had no idea that kyua had a report-html command.

I uploaded the report here: https://people.freebsd.org/~kevans/porch-results/

archive.tar in that directory packages the directory for convenience. IMO it leaves a little bit to be desired, I would've kinda liked to see test names to attribute each result to, but maybe it does if they fail/skip.

Install the dbm module for OPTIONS_SET+= BDB1 to unbreak uses of the dbm submodule.

Oh neat, the plist is broken for all but OPTIONS_SET+= BDB.

In D40366#1073408, @brnrd wrote:

How did you verify that Berkeley DB support is working with these changes? httxt2dbm is failing for me.

In D46653#1064186, @igoro wrote:

Rework structure of test result types metadata. Fix tests.

Rebase on recent ports tree

Update the diff to the latest version: 1.7.5

Specifying this in the Makefile is significantly less code than doing it in the atf tests:

TEST_METADATA.lorder_test+=  required_programs="ar cc lorder nm"

This metadata ends up in the Kyuafile.

Could you please demo the test program (attach the kyua html report)?

I'll push this commit along with D46829. I just didn't have anything clever to put down in the proposed commit message because it's an extremely straightforward change.

I didn't mean to open up this revision.

It seems like this should be named "PORCH_TESTS" instead of "PLAIN_TESTS_PORCH" (that seems pretty wordy..).
Or maybe something LUA-prefixed?
PLAIN_TESTS is the variant of test which has a certain expected/documented behavior, whereas, _CXX, _C, _SH are the file types under test. Are all "PORCH" tests expected to exit on 0 if successful and exit non-zero if failed?

We're now 2 subminor versions behind and this component is impacted by at least one CVE: CVE-2023-49582 (resolved in 1.7.5). Could this update please be done (along with considering my other patch in D40366)?

In D46602#1062000, @gordon wrote:

Assuming this is a straight import, LGTM.

Update opensslv.h and change OPENSSL_VER to match the package provided date

I need to update crypto/openssl/include/openssl/opensslv.h as well, like I did in https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/?id=dd43e907c7c0caec8867e42fa1fcfea4ac4c87f6 . This can be regenerated via crypto/openssl/config.

Would it make sense to create another testcase specific for -S vs non--S?
Not a huge deal.. just thinking ahead (and yes, I need to rebase netbsd-tests sometime soon...).

In D46531#1060725, @jhb wrote:

Nevermind, I had misread this as "atf_add_test_case".

Thank you for doing this!

This modifies config file support slightly. Please bump the schema version and add appropriate tests for the new config schema vs the old config schema.

re: tzsetup: Hmm.. that question isn't really user friendly. How about "Is the [system?] clock set to local time?" instead of the previous question?
LGTM about the bsdinstall change!