Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 21:37:59 +0000 From: Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> To: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> Cc: freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why did main's [so: 15's] new aarch64 snapshots have PINE64 (not -LTS) instead of RPI? (has -LTS too) Message-ID: <20231027213759.GH1289@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <EB8C6ED5-49FB-4570-85CF-F558D545BEE5@yahoo.com> References: <DB83C4B5-4ACF-4FED-932A-D415F99B2C8B.ref@yahoo.com> <DB83C4B5-4ACF-4FED-932A-D415F99B2C8B@yahoo.com> <20231027182822.GF1289@FreeBSD.org> <EB8C6ED5-49FB-4570-85CF-F558D545BEE5@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Th5JPit8I3Q6/gDv Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 02:26:19PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: > On Oct 27, 2023, at 11:28, Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >=20 > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:35:39PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: > >> https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-snapshots/2023-October/0003= 08.html > >> [New FreeBSD snapshots available: main (20231019 fb7140b1f928)] > >>=20 > >> reported (note "RPI"): > >>=20 > >> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 GENERIC > >> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 RPI > >> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 PINE64-LTS > >> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 PINEBOOK > >> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 ROCK64 > >> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 ROCKPRO64 > >> o 15.0-CURRENT riscv64 GENERIC > >> o 15.0-CURRENT riscv64 GENERICSD > >>=20 > >> https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-snapshots/2023-October/0003= 10.html > >> [New FreeBSD snapshots available: main (20231026 d3a36e4b7459) ] > >>=20 > >> reported (note "PINE64" without "-LTS" and lack of "RPI"): > >>=20 > >> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 GENERIC > >> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 PINE64 > >> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 PINE64-LTS > >> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 PINEBOOK > >> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 ROCK64 > >> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 ROCKPRO64 > >> o 15.0-CURRENT riscv64 GENERIC > >> o 15.0-CURRENT riscv64 GENERICSD > >>=20 > >>=20 > >=20 > > Last week, RPI succeeded while PINE64 failed. This week, the opposite > > occurred. >=20 > I should have looked at more history instead of just using the 2. Sorry. >=20 No worries at all. It is a valid inquiry - especially since I honestly was expecting another PINE64 failure this week. Glen --Th5JPit8I3Q6/gDv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEjRJAPC5sqwhs9k2jAxRYpUeP4pMFAmU8LbcACgkQAxRYpUeP 4pM3EhAAgd4uxMb5sZlt086QLqi+mDqVVmMW1XKyNSDSqakyK9oej6yDQ8irdTbC /QZKlQ32DmcUhpjrTQ0/PNdSQfYIRw44aP32UAOWVG9gKm6xX+/zkrZca2lxBD3s SfyPpcxjCwRr8kourFuE0aLWtPLkb5bt8jUO8SVLR90fZvQTOuCNwo24A9stTkb+ ILXlWUuqdJs6pNa7IRsDf6WhkW8+RWLw+mkdn/eUeqhdEmzqXbWOjnr1jJtbMHgs PNlw+5Xmd55LHV3oAdJS3c7XoRmfFKrXqyf2jJQmWLStqMxRK+ulJeYlv1BQkf5X hTP48lJZacgD7MlFT2cIqpkUX+uIpqxSDI8GnkanoMJ3TKfRfFzi1lXr/AwYgqXH MLiQQtRFEGdbaQ+0VMBcEgO7SPfPKjJ755aMcUZcxExaXu6xtPOrBbaf4r21GSQr W1hVP8UNyiv0Kp7pvFKpa4Xq5EzulR47x6EXrQ0+yBFhbQBne+Gy6CstX8RTY3gx p4SbaLRBeV4nJjCAqWAMhL1OH5QjUElFgT90CLCIFmbPixxqGPhuQNT/bQG+8uez TGc6csz3wQQx4Y/rmX4NcA1/kqYqCEUefHgKdmltt8um3tbRviAuYeTN74nJrxsz lcUDYJriXlFJ3iMKpG38Y/2gsWAn59Zaw94qf0edbpQTtUBmMjk= =d0jn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Th5JPit8I3Q6/gDv--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20231027213759.GH1289>