> 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
> affects.
> Are we talking about head or stable/10 here?
> Glen
> I am talking about head, which no longer installs/packages multiple kernels 
> by default.
> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/Makefile.inc1?revision=299088&view=markup
> 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...


freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to