From owner-freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org Mon May 9 18:11:13 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pkgbase@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253C9B344C7; Mon, 9 May 2016 18:11:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:75::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0672118C4; Mon, 9 May 2016 18:11:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from ralph.baldwin.cx (c-73-231-226-104.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.226.104]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D41CEB9A3; Mon, 9 May 2016 14:11:11 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: NO_INSTALLEXTRAKERNELS and PkgBase Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 11:05:55 -0700 Message-ID: <3382220.3AgOZzUBmF@ralph.baldwin.cx> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.3 (FreeBSD/10.2-STABLE; KDE/4.14.3; amd64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20160507135005.GN62286@albert.catwhisker.org> References: <20160507135005.GN62286@albert.catwhisker.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Mon, 09 May 2016 14:11:11 -0400 (EDT) X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: "Packaging the FreeBSD base system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 18:11:13 -0000 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) > > 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. -- John Baldwin