Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 14:40:12 -0400 From: Ultima <ultima1252@gmail.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NO_INSTALLEXTRAKERNELS and PkgBase Message-ID: <CANJ8om4N0zoKR8ECsFDZTpaQpiBE1YoO1oMr_=H5o5Fy3Vbjhw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3382220.3AgOZzUBmF@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <CAOc73CC6WoFHPDBa6LGMyhmnA1ZjiemffyTJBGBNSZwPOu8KzA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOc73CD_0O2bBNB9UH7JhzaCBj1iVD0t_FjkuPJEbWj3M2-oPA@mail.gmail.com> <20160507135005.GN62286@albert.catwhisker.org> <3382220.3AgOZzUBmF@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
If multiple kernels are being installed like this, eg KERNCONF="FOO BAR", which of the two would be default during boot? FOO because it came first? On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:05 PM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Saturday, May 07, 2016 06:50:05 AM David Wolfskill wrote: > > [Recipient list trimmed a bit -- dhw] > > > > I'm speaking up here because IIRC, I whined to Gleb at what I perceived > > to be a POLA violation a while back.... > > > > On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 09:59:06AM +0200, Ben Woods wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > Indeed, I am not sure I understand the POLA violation entirely > (ignoring > > > the fact that this variable requires affirmation of a negative). > > > > > > 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? > > > > Errr... no: I don't. At least, not on the machine where I built them. > > Then don't pass them to 'installkernel'? That is, I think this makes sense > if you want to build N kernels but only install 1: > > make buildkernel KERNCONF="FOO BAR BAZ" > > # only install the FOO kernel > > make installkernel KERNCONF="FOO" > > And then if you want to install multiple: > > # install both FOO and BAR kernels > > make installkernel KERNCONF="FOO BAR" > > The runaround seems to be whether this last case now should require > multiple > explicit installkernel invocations which I find inconsistent since the > build > stage doesn't. I would fully expect 'installkernel' to install all of the > kernels listed in KERNCONF and would assume that it is up to the invoker to > choose KERNCONF appropriately. > > -- > John Baldwin > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANJ8om4N0zoKR8ECsFDZTpaQpiBE1YoO1oMr_=H5o5Fy3Vbjhw>