On Dec 10, 2025, at 9:14 PM, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@openbsd.org> wrote:
> 
>> I got curious and looked at what it would take to support both the old
>> and new structure sizes, and the diff below appears to work fine.  The
>> issue is more of a problem on slower architectures where kernel and
>> packages can stay unsynchronized for a longer time.  Thoughts?
> 
> I really don't believe in that 'support model'.  The people using those
> machines build their own packages (or they don't, but that's not our
> problem).

If I remove the backward compat in the devel/gdb patches (the
#ifdef PT_PTS_NAMELEN conditionals) then ports gdb won’t build unless
base has the PT_PTS_NAMELEN define. This alone should ensure that
ports gdb is built with a base that has the new define. The conditionals
I put in the ports/gdb patches are only needed if we upstream the
changes so they can be left out in the port. In fact, I think either
way they should be removed from the port patches to ensure the p1 package
is built with an updated base system.

-Kurt