On Saturday, May 07, 2016 06:50:05 AM David Wolfskill wrote:
> [Recipient list trimmed a bit -- dhw]
> I'm speaking up here because IIRC, I whined to Gleb at what I perceived
> to be a POLA violation a while back....
> On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 09:59:06AM +0200, Ben Woods wrote:
> > On 7 May 2016 at 09:48, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya) <yaneurab...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > glebius changed the defaults to fix POLA, but the naming per the behavior
> > > is confusing. Right now the behavior between ^/head and ^/stable/10
> > > before/now match -- I just had to wrap my mind around the default being
> > > the
> > > affirmative of a negative (i.e. only install one kernel, as opposed to
> > > install all extra kernels by default).
> > > -Ngie
> > Indeed, I am not sure I understand the POLA violation entirely (ignoring
> > the fact that this variable requires affirmation of a negative).
> > If you list 2 kernels in the KERNCONF variable, why is it astonishing that
> > 2 kernels get installed? Even if the old behaviour was to only install 1
> > kernel, if you are listing 2 kernels in KERNCONF presumably that is because
> > you want to install 2 kernels?
> Errr... no: I don't. At least, not on the machine where I built them.
Then don't pass them to 'installkernel'? That is, I think this makes sense
if you want to build N kernels but only install 1:
make buildkernel KERNCONF="FOO BAR BAZ"
# only install the FOO kernel
make installkernel KERNCONF="FOO"
And then if you want to install multiple:
# install both FOO and BAR kernels
make installkernel KERNCONF="FOO BAR"
The runaround seems to be whether this last case now should require multiple
explicit installkernel invocations which I find inconsistent since the build
stage doesn't. I would fully expect 'installkernel' to install all of the
kernels listed in KERNCONF and would assume that it is up to the invoker to
choose KERNCONF appropriately.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"