recommended poudriere jail versions?

[Marko Cupać]

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:05:32 +0200
Mark Martinec <Mark.Martinec+freebsd at ijs.si> wrote:

> 2015-10-01 10:32, Marko Cupać wrote:
> > what is the recommended poudriere jail version for building ports?
> > So far I was trying to be on latest binary patchlevel for every
> > minor version for both base system, poudriere jails and clients,
> > but I ended up with three jails just for amd64 (9.3, 10.1 and
> > 10.2), where I need to
> > rebuild all the ports every time I patch poudriere jails. This is
> > starting to take too much of my time.
> > 
> > I see that pkg.freebsd.org hosts just one set of ports per
> > architecture of major version. What is the OS version they are built
> > on? Are there any downsides in building all the ports for
> > 10.2-<latestpathclevel> on 10.1-<nopatches>?
> 
> I used to have poudriere jails based on a minor version like you have,
> but ended up in a simplified setup, building ports only on
> 10.0-RELEASE and installing them on 10.1 or 10.2 and 10-STABLE. I
> think the official packages are also built based on 10.0-RELEASE .
> 
> This mostly works, except for a port like virtualbox-ose-kmod,
> which causes a kernel crash when built on 10.0-RELEASE and run
> on 10.2. So after each ports upgrade when noticing that pkg
> is reinstalling virtualbox-ose-kmod, I re-build this one from
> ports on a target host, otherwise the next reboot will end up
> crashing on loading a vboxdrv kernel module during startup.

Thanx for info. I'd like to give building everything on
10.1-RELEASE-<nopatches> a try, but I don't see the ability of poudriere
to specify patclevel when using ftp method - it always fetches the
latest one. Is this by design, to discourage building on potentially
vulnerable versions, or just non-implemented functionality?

Regards,
-- 
Before enlightenment - chop wood, draw water.
After  enlightenment - chop wood, draw water.

Marko Cupać
https://www.mimar.rs/