Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:10:39 +0900 (JST) From: TAKAHASHI Yoshihiro <nyan@FreeBSD.org> To: kensmith@buffalo.edu Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, nwhitehorn@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r227536 - in head: release share/man/man7 Message-ID: <20111117.121039.812628220522982454.nyan@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1321457050.78238.10.camel@bauer.cse.buffalo.edu> References: <20111116.232828.343708041526200614.nyan@FreeBSD.org> <4EC3D40A.5040204@freebsd.org> <1321457050.78238.10.camel@bauer.cse.buffalo.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <1321457050.78238.10.camel@bauer.cse.buffalo.edu>
Ken Smith <kensmith@buffalo.edu> writes:
>> >> +: ${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.
I see.
> 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.
I think that the same scheme as the FTP site is better. So I choose
(3) option.
---
TAKAHASHI Yoshihiro <nyan@FreeBSD.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111117.121039.812628220522982454.nyan>