Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 7 May 2016 01:16:43 -0700
From:      "Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya)" <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>
To:        Ben Woods <woodsb02@gmail.com>
Cc:        Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org" <freebsd-pkgbase@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: NO_INSTALLEXTRAKERNELS and PkgBase
Message-ID:  <A93F5351-D054-43BB-A78F-287C383E778A@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOc73CD_0O2bBNB9UH7JhzaCBj1iVD0t_FjkuPJEbWj3M2-oPA@mail.gmail.com>
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> <1CCC4F95-D01E-4A5E-A744-5FE2ECA3D8FB@gmail.com> <CAOc73CD_0O2bBNB9UH7JhzaCBj1iVD0t_FjkuPJEbWj3M2-oPA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

> On May 7, 2016, at 00:59, Ben Woods <woodsb02@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> 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
>=20
> Indeed, I am not sure I understand the POLA violation entirely =
(ignoring the fact that this variable requires affirmation of a =
negative).

It=E2=80=99s tricky=E2=80=A6 KERNCONF with multiple kernel =
configurations wasn=E2=80=99t properly supported at install time until =
2016 AFAIK (r291611, r293391), so again (AFAIK) it=E2=80=99s a new =
[functional] feature, even though make.conf(5) says one can specify =
multiple kernel configurations in KERNCONF at build time.

> 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?

=46rom a literal perspective, it makes perfect sense. =46rom a usability =
perspective though, or in terms of actual behavior, it makes less sense.

If FreeBSD required more explicit pathing for kernels like Linux in the =
boot loader (e.g. grub) on many distros (e.g. CentOS), this would likely =
be a non-issue.

> Regardless, perhaps it is ok to leave behaviour on stable 9/10 =
unchanged, but to make the behaviour on head to install multiple kernels =
by default? That is the option that makes sense for PkgBase (build =
multiple kernel packages if more than one are listed in KERNCONF).

Yes, but the knob should be renamed for clarity. imp@ had a very good =
point =E2=80=94 NO_* options aren=E2=80=99t as flexible/intuitive as =
MK_* options and lead to confusing behavior.

Thanks!
-Ngie=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A93F5351-D054-43BB-A78F-287C383E778A>