Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:42:10 +0100 From: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.org> To: Ken Smith <kensmith@buffalo.edu> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>, TAKAHASHI Yoshihiro <nyan@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r227536 - in head: release share/man/man7 Message-ID: <20111117124210.GB2051@garage.freebsd.pl> In-Reply-To: <1321457050.78238.10.camel@bauer.cse.buffalo.edu> References: <201111151849.pAFInR3K012609@svn.freebsd.org> <20111116.232828.343708041526200614.nyan@FreeBSD.org> <4EC3D40A.5040204@freebsd.org> <1321457050.78238.10.camel@bauer.cse.buffalo.edu>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:24:10AM -0500, Ken Smith wrote:
> 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"?
Can't we use one if they are equal?
--
Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com
FreeBSD committer http://www.FreeBSD.org
Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! http://yomoli.com
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAk7FASIACgkQForvXbEpPzS6BwCdHWcwAjHBLaYResnMHE9/i8+S
5xkAmwS87wA2t3XH9cotbkypiWHv+zJm
=+2ZV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111117124210.GB2051>