> On May 9, 2024, at 5:37 PM, Robert Elz <k...@munnari.oz.au> wrote:
>
> Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 12:09:03 -0400
> From: "Christos Zoulas" <chris...@netbsd.org>
> Message-ID: <20240509160903.6e41bf...@cvs.netbsd.org>
>
> | Instead of augmenting the platform spec with an autogenerated one,
> | we should understand why we have missing entries in the first place.
>
> Is it really important? Everything was fine without it previously,
> except that reproducible builds, weren't (as local info was being
> used in the CD images).
>
> As long as the "augmenting" is just providing info for files that
> weren't otherwise specified (an issue I admit to not checking in the
> change I made) - that is, as long as makefs takes the first entry in
> the spec file it is given, should there be more than one for a file
> (if it prefers to use the last, then that would just change the order
> in which the augmentation file is included, no need to change makefs)
> then I'm not really sure what the problem is.
I am not sure either but the resulting cd does not boot anymore. I am trying to
understand why. If augmenting works as you describe, there is more problem...
christos
>
> That is, I don't see we need to add yet another manual maintenance step
> that we need to make in order to add or remove a file from a CD image
> (or whatever the image is destined for) when the information being added
> isn't really important - but just needs to be consistent.
>
> kre
