> On May 7, 2016, at 00:46, Ben Woods <woods...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7 May 2016 at 09:41, Glen Barber <g...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> I think this raises a larger question - did "something" change that
> otherwise violates POLA? The commit recently was intended to revert
> a POLA violation, so maybe I am not entirely clear on what branch this
> Are we talking about head or stable/10 here?
> I am talking about head, which no longer installs/packages multiple kernels
> by default.
> Whilst the r299088 commit is referring to a stable POLA violation, the commit
> itself is a change to head with a proposed MFC after 3 days. Its interesting,
> because this has surprised me when testing PkgBase on head, as the behaviour
> has changed from the initial announcement.
The behavior in and of itself (to me) is unintuitive. I use a different wrapper
script [*] to install kernels with a different name because I want them to be
versioned based on $KERNCONF + revision data. I only fixed building multiple
kernels because the change that glebius tested didn’t work with more than one
KERNCONF (hence the double commit).
I think the default behavior should be “yes” (not “no”) as many folks use a
single KERNCONF, not multiple (on head), but I’m biased in this thinking...
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"