From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Mon May 9 18:40:13 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@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 A2B3EB34E87 for ; Mon, 9 May 2016 18:40:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ultima1252@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yw0-x22f.google.com (mail-yw0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62E491812; Mon, 9 May 2016 18:40:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ultima1252@gmail.com) Received: by mail-yw0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id o66so295242009ywc.3; Mon, 09 May 2016 11:40:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=OuoVzHgKuGE5WJgkuwZL2tNFeS1zCDaO06lZVgKnJXs=; b=J3xAqutQr6Z+1Nt5l8p5HSLS8SLIqMnVAegEw9vOKO1XNKkUitakLTv3G1W415WHxs /6DkxIjHb2d5BO2QZutuWcT4PVoGg/2DZ5GIoG0vmpSJQ24RTxc5Se5KiY3DIMzncSXl quvtZ4Z4wImmKmHWZ2D4NHb7IADIyI2ZvKLgFNUbvsgUSfkn/FgVLDm4vGHU/42mWcOY JrI8PRS5+Bkrk10ZOcffqaRXTLrub8cFtG/zR6CQdhAFLREV8Ya9/XLvCFX+WMkv4xdM 4oFN9PswIYQo5YdfAqgwnewAqhLkqWKalmeQENxDRaeEyFoclRy7ZN3RSvB7aEsDDnci I59A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=OuoVzHgKuGE5WJgkuwZL2tNFeS1zCDaO06lZVgKnJXs=; b=H5i1GkaGucgVSOXWllVxc9v7WSBJdXlD4yD1Beh2y3iT75/vs0LfHxc2rc98KVb6s8 yl5b3NCwRoacRCa+9HFYqAykSG03Ml8DwTdXWbyCtaGN6397ffTZ2jldpvjL3jOokPHr iq59q1dy38CU7Oi+UFVZZYL6aOcVxd00xV39ErA1TX2u1iXaoV6M1xCFzWACrnUKVjic FaxFyF2yRSPONg9bvXYwRJUmCpdhMdzEvrr8vmT1hP5acilHNYypXBsvKobs1ZG8iGcG CHbqBTf/hJYwOcuC1cD6WElqDzHbXtWf9IyPzIPpGIYWyHyQ9iykTAcJLJ6U8Q7RLUp+ pcqg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FViA51iBkfwx9i5Uk7Xl94Y0RqkRq5hhGidjyq0jM6S2pqgSAU4cfFELJpYLQaWE2rFcVg7NQey8SqrqA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.129.2.66 with SMTP id 63mr20130629ywc.250.1462819212573; Mon, 09 May 2016 11:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.129.5.216 with HTTP; Mon, 9 May 2016 11:40:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3382220.3AgOZzUBmF@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <20160507135005.GN62286@albert.catwhisker.org> <3382220.3AgOZzUBmF@ralph.baldwin.cx> Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 14:40:12 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: NO_INSTALLEXTRAKERNELS and PkgBase From: Ultima To: John Baldwin Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.22 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 May 2016 18:40:13 -0000 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 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) < > yaneurabeya@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. > > -- > John Baldwin > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >