Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 15:52:57 -0400 From: Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org> To: Hiroki Sato <hrs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r254224 - head/share/man/man7 Message-ID: <20130813195257.GA2241@glenbarber.us> In-Reply-To: <20130814.042557.877689080765344354.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <201308111857.r7BIvRSq080970@svn.freebsd.org> <20130814.042557.877689080765344354.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 04:25:57AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> gj> +.It Va SRCREVISION
> gj> +The revision of the
> gj> +.Li src/
> gj> +tree to use.
> gj> +Defaults to the current top of tree revision.
> gj> +.It Va DOCREVISION
> gj> +The revision of the
> gj> +.Li doc/
> gj> +tree to use.
> gj> +Defaults to the current top of tree revision.
> gj> +.It Va PORTREVISION
>=20
> Why separation between revision and branch is needed? I
> intentionally dropped this part from your old patch to
> generate-release.sh because branch and revision number can be
> specified like releng/9.2@NNN in a single variable. An incorrect
> configuration of the two variables do not always cause a fatal error,
> so specification in fewer number of variables is more foolproof.
>=20
I personally do not like using branch@rNNNNNN, but will update to remove
the {SRC,DOC,PORT}REVISION variables.
> gj> +.It Va TARGET
> gj> +The target machine type for the release.
> gj> +Defaults to the current machine type.
> gj> +.It Va TARGET_ARCH
> gj> +The target machine architecture for the release.
> gj> +Defaults to the value of
> gj> +.Va TARGET .
> gj> +.Pp
>=20
> Please remove default configuration of these variables from
> release.sh. The reasonable defaults are already set in src/Makefile
> and setting TARGET_ARCH=3D$TARGET by default is simply wrong. Also,
> get_rev_branch() is redundant.
>=20
Will be changed shortly.
Why is get_rev_branch() redundant?
> gj> +Defaults to setting the number of
> gj> +.Xr make 1
> gj> +jobs
> gj> +.Pq Ar -j
> gj> +to half the number of CPUs available on the system.
>=20
> Did you try this on a uniprocessor machine?
Ugh. No, and now I see why it will not work.
Glen
--+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (FreeBSD)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSCo6ZAAoJEFJPDDeguUajw+gH+gNP9lSjyHpTB//5nLeCx50k
KYp2vnYU6ZM56oqSpKIasj4vbFpsS5AULorisFcAKZ/qSBjigurgWg16QMnU6lnA
FH4Z0OvOt+NEZpj7UlOSkkIWYBkrwLIIwo2kcM9NOuketI+AIYxDKZ6d0n3/Iiw7
dGssaCmrqVaUTozTQswcanNurvTWWltemikMD/TC+TJ4jZIvojCHGTbq+V/aoknm
QqqGZ4ceUfiGFY9DK3JHqVWylE4GIVbqlvPvt05e+qKwk16kbhNQ1mF1XgnkbvHV
BxkbnEpsFQkoO5vhjpbY/roOG1bJB6+TZ9Ua2qufW6loKfD77HomrFI3odJgKgE=
=u7x3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--+HP7ph2BbKc20aGI--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130813195257.GA2241>