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.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"?
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
pgpogSoBlrVis.pgp
Description: PGP signature