I think this looks good. As far as I can tell, these bits pass the test suite (though the tests panic elsewhere, which is tedious). I looked carefully over the localtime.c changes and I don't see anything broken, but I haven't manually tested every FreeBSD-ism.

Thank you for dealing with upstream so patiently. ;-)

I don't like this. It further hides the real problem.

In D53964#1233038, @cperciva wrote:

In D53964#1233037, @bdrewery wrote:

In D53964#1232996, @philip wrote:

We could probably shave off several seconds for many people by replacing pkg+https with pkg+http. The TLS n-way handshake is a complete waste of time. I have made this observation about the other repositories as well but...

Windmills. Have to keep trying.

Agreed. All https buys us here is quieting an FAQ. It otherwise adds time and potentially has problems in some corporate setups.

It does provide a little bit of protection against rollback attacks. Not much, though; there's a reason I used HTTP for freebsd-update.

We could probably shave off several seconds for many people by replacing pkg+https with pkg+http. The TLS n-way handshake is a complete waste of time. I have made this observation about the other repositories as well but...

Pong. This one looks good too. :)

Thank you. And I'm glad to see upstream getting more in sync with us. ;-)

Wow. That's a blast from the past.

Thanks for clarifying.

This makes sense. Thank you.

This is good. And it passes the test in D52241.

Hah. I forgot I did a previous installworld after reviewing D52240. I am not smart.
This looks good. And the test passes with the D52240 applied.

• Check failed: /home/philip/freebsd/src/lib/libc/tests/stdtime/detect_tz_changes_test.c:96: expect != buf (-0700 (PDT) != +0000 (-00))

This looks good. Thank you!

This compiles and the "git diff" output against upstream and against main looks plausible. I have not checked every line of the diff with a fine tooth comb. But this can land. I don't think it will break.

This looks good. I agree about strftime.c.

Approved by: philip (mentor)

I tested this in the FreeBSD.org cluster and it works. Many thanks!

I did a cursory review and a quick test. This seems to do what it says on the box. I have not had time for an in-depth review. I think this is good to commit to main before stable/15.

I don't think PowerPC 32 failing is a blocker for main or stable/15: we're ending support for 32 bit platforms. Do we ever plan to merge this to stable/14 though?

Approved by: philip (mentor)

Approved by: philip (mentor)

Approved by: philip (mentor)

Approved by: philip (mentor)

I haven't tested this but assuming we do indeed use only interface ioctls, this looks like it should work.

Looks good to me. Thank you for addressing @bz's comments.