Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:24:10 -0500 From: Ken Smith <kensmith@buffalo.edu> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, TAKAHASHI Yoshihiro <nyan@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r227536 - in head: release share/man/man7 Message-ID: <1321457050.78238.10.camel@bauer.cse.buffalo.edu> In-Reply-To: <4EC3D40A.5040204@freebsd.org> References: <201111151849.pAFInR3K012609@svn.freebsd.org> <20111116.232828.343708041526200614.nyan@FreeBSD.org> <4EC3D40A.5040204@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 09:17 -0600, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> On 11/16/11 08:28, TAKAHASHI Yoshihiro wrote:
> > In article<201111151849.pAFInR3K012609@svn.freebsd.org>
> > Nathan Whitehorn<nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> writes:
> >
> >> Log:
> >> Further automate production release generation by naming files the right
> >> things and generating checksums.
> >>
> >> Modified: head/release/generate-release.sh
> >> ==============================================================================
> >> --- head/release/generate-release.sh Tue Nov 15 17:53:29 2011 (r227535)
> >> +++ head/release/generate-release.sh Tue Nov 15 18:49:27 2011 (r227536)
> >> @@ -65,3 +66,12 @@ chroot $2 make -C /usr/src $MAKE_FLAGS b
> >> chroot $2 make -C /usr/src/release release
> >> chroot $2 make -C /usr/src/release install DESTDIR=/R
> >>
> >> +: ${RELSTRING=`chroot $2 uname -s`-`chroot $2 uname -r`-`chroot $2 uname -p`}
> > Should this be 'uname -m' rather than 'uname -p'?
>
> There isn't a good option here when there is only one tag -- most of the
> time, I imagine this will get specified in the builder's environment. I
> picked uname -p because there are more possibilities than uname -m: it
> breaks the degeneracies for PPC, ARM, and MIPS, leaving only one for
> i386/pc98. uname -m would have been the other way around.
> -Nathan
>
Or both? We're heading in the direction of having both for the FTP
server tree.
Kinda gross but "FBSD-9.0-RELEASE-amd64-amd64-bootonly.iso"? I don't
see a good option among the three possibilities, which are:
1) uname -m only
2) uname -p only
3) both
Option 3 at least has the benefit of not being abiguous and covers all
the possibilities for builds given the new infrastructure.
--
Ken Smith
- From there to here, from here to | kensmith@buffalo.edu
there, funny things are everywhere. |
- Theodor Geisel |
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD)
iEYEABECAAYFAk7D1YwACgkQ/G14VSmup/YECgCfXvlHtuq2w6NIZ0Kqep85PsV/
srQAnRgjHRV7RUdPyDvtRsoyXYft5G4n
=Y5eV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1321457050.78238.10.camel>