On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 12:43:42PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> ...
> > I suppose there's probably some way to arrange things so the KERNCONF
> > specification in /etc/src.conf has one value during "buildkernel" and a
> > different value during "inistallkernel" -- but ... seriously...??!?
>
> One
On Monday, May 09, 2016 11:45:44 AM David Wolfskill wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 11:05:55AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 07, 2016 06:50:05 AM David Wolfskill wrote:
> > > [Recipient list trimmed a bit -- dhw]
> > ...
> > > > 2 kernels get installed? Even if the old
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 11:46:02AM -0700, Freddie Cash wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Ultima wrote:
>
> > If multiple kernels are being installed like this, eg KERNCONF="FOO BAR",
> > which of the two would be default during boot? FOO because it came first?
>
>
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Ultima wrote:
> If multiple kernels are being installed like this, eg KERNCONF="FOO BAR",
> which of the two would be default during boot? FOO because it came first?
Correct. At least, that's the way it's worked in the past, and
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 11:05:55AM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Saturday, May 07, 2016 06:50:05 AM David Wolfskill wrote:
> > [Recipient list trimmed a bit -- dhw]
> ...
> > > 2 kernels get installed? Even if the old behaviour was to only install 1
> > > kernel, if you are listing 2 kernels in
If multiple kernels are being installed like this, eg KERNCONF="FOO BAR",
which of the two would be default during boot? FOO because it came first?
On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:05 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Saturday, May 07, 2016 06:50:05 AM David Wolfskill wrote:
> > [Recipient
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
I don't really know what to quote here, but the documentation is not clear.
There ought to be something in UPDATING.
Issue is building and installing more than one kernel. I tried once, and it
didn't work right. I had to go back to one kernel at a time and NO_MODULES=yes
on second and
On Saturday, 7 May 2016, David Wolfskill wrote:
>
> > 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
[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)
> wrote:
>
> On May 7, 2016, at 00:59, Ben Woods wrote:
>
> On 7 May 2016 at 09:48, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya)
> wrote:
> glebius changed the defaults to fix POLA, but the naming per the behavior is
> confusing. Right now the behavior between ^/head and
> On May 7, 2016, at 00:46, Ben Woods wrote:
>
>
> On 7 May 2016 at 09:41, Glen Barber 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,
On 7 May 2016 at 09:48, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya)
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
On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 09:46:03AM +0200, Ben Woods wrote:
> On 7 May 2016 at 09:41, Glen Barber 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
> On May 7, 2016, at 00:41, Glen Barber wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 12:35:10AM -0700, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya) wrote:
>> (Replying because I kicked the hornet’s nest when my build failed)
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>>> On May 7, 2016, at 00:27, Ben Woods
On 7 May 2016 at 09:41, Glen Barber 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
On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 12:35:10AM -0700, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya) wrote:
> (Replying because I kicked the hornet’s nest when my build failed)
> Hi Ben,
>
> > On May 7, 2016, at 00:27, Ben Woods wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, 7 May 2016, Glen Barber wrote:
>
(Replying because I kicked the hornet’s nest when my build failed)
Hi Ben,
> On May 7, 2016, at 00:27, Ben Woods wrote:
>
> On Saturday, 7 May 2016, Glen Barber wrote:
>
>> With 'installkernel', the first kernel listed in KERNCONF is installed
>> as the
On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 09:27:54AM +0200, Ben Woods wrote:
> On Saturday, 7 May 2016, Glen Barber wrote:
>
> > With 'installkernel', the first kernel listed in KERNCONF is installed
> > as the default (/boot/kernel), and subsequent kernels are installed with
> > the kernel name
On Saturday, 7 May 2016, Glen Barber wrote:
> With 'installkernel', the first kernel listed in KERNCONF is installed
> as the default (/boot/kernel), and subsequent kernels are installed with
> the kernel name included in the path (/boot/kernel.${INSTKERNNAME}). In
> both
On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 12:08:28AM +0200, Ben Woods wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The commit in r299088 changes the behaviour for building multiple kernels
> when the KERNCONF value contains multiple (space-separated) kernel conf
> names.
> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision=299088
>
>
Hi everyone,
The commit in r299088 changes the behaviour for building multiple kernels
when the KERNCONF value contains multiple (space-separated) kernel conf
names.
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision=299088
When PkgBase was announced by Glen Barber in March, note 4 of his email
22 matches
Mail list logo