On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 09:17 -0600, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > On 11/16/11 08:28, TAKAHASHI Yoshihiro wrote: > > In article<201111151849.pafinr3k012...@svn.freebsd.org> > > Nathan Whitehorn<nwhiteh...@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"? 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. -- Ken Smith - From there to here, from here to | kensm...@buffalo.edu there, funny things are everywhere. | - Theodor Geisel |
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part