Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 00:48:29 -0700 From: "Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya)" <yaneurabeya@gmail.com> To: Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Ben Woods <woodsb02@gmail.com>, "freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org" <freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: NO_INSTALLEXTRAKERNELS and PkgBase Message-ID: <1CCC4F95-D01E-4A5E-A744-5FE2ECA3D8FB@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20160507074159.GC47527@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAOc73CC6WoFHPDBa6LGMyhmnA1ZjiemffyTJBGBNSZwPOu8KzA@mail.gmail.com> <20160506221151.GN1362@FreeBSD.org> <CAOc73CACQUhx2rGuC1ftcpuk=LeOv8fEpnR0A2PPRGVo31RYRg@mail.gmail.com> <7018EDCD-A567-446D-965C-9E886D543238@gmail.com> <20160507074159.GC47527@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On May 7, 2016, at 00:41, Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org> 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 <woodsb02@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Saturday, 7 May 2016, Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> 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 cases (source-based upgrades and with pkgbase), the behavior will
>>>> remain the same.
>>>>
>>>> Glen
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Glen,
>>>
>>> With the recent commit mentioned previously, only the first kernel listed
>>> in KERNCONF is installed unless make.conf contains the following line:
>>> NO_INSTALLEXTRAKERNELS=no
>>>
>>> This affects both source-based upgrades (make installkernel) and package
>>> building (make packages).
>>>
>>> Is this the desired behaviour?
>>
>> The naming is very confusing. It should be:
>>
>> - MK_INSTALLEXTRAKERNELS=no -> only install one
>> - MK_INSTALLEXTRAKERNELS=yes -> install multiple, as gjb@ described above.
>>
>> Since I kicked the hornet’s nest (and imp@ complained about the
>> NO_*), I’ll introduce a new WITH/WITHOUT option for this and
>> release/release.sh can use it.
>>
>
> 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 talking about head or stable/10 here?
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1CCC4F95-D01E-4A5E-A744-5FE2ECA3D8FB>