Re: NO_INSTALLEXTRAKERNELS and PkgBase

On Sat, May 07, 2016 at 12:35:10AM -0700, Ngie Cooper (yaneurabeya) wrote:
> (Replying because I kicked the hornet’s nest when my build failed)
> Hi Ben,
> 
> > On May 7, 2016, at 00:27, Ben Woods <woodsb02_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Saturday, 7 May 2016, Glen Barber <gjb_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> With 'installkernel', the first kernel listed in KERNCONF is installed
> >> as the default (/boot/kernel), and subsequent kernels are installed with
> >> the kernel name included in the path (/boot/kernel.${INSTKERNNAME}).  In
> >> both cases (source-based upgrades and with pkgbase), the behavior will
> >> remain the same.
> >> 
> >> Glen
> >> 
> > 
> > Hi Glen,
> > 
> > With the recent commit mentioned previously, only the first kernel listed
> > in KERNCONF is installed unless make.conf contains the following line:
> > NO_INSTALLEXTRAKERNELS=no
> > 
> > This affects both source-based upgrades (make installkernel) and package
> > building (make packages).
> > 
> > Is this the desired behaviour?
> 
> The naming is very confusing. It should be:
> 
> - MK_INSTALLEXTRAKERNELS=no -> only install one
> - MK_INSTALLEXTRAKERNELS=yes -> install multiple, as gjb_at_ described above.
> 
> Since I kicked the hornet’s nest (and imp_at_ complained about the
> NO_*), I’ll introduce a new WITH/WITHOUT option for this and
> release/release.sh can use it.
> 

I think this raises a larger question - did "something" change that
otherwise violates POLA?  The commit recently was intended to revert
a POLA violation, so maybe I am not entirely clear on what branch this
affects.

Are we talking about head or stable/10 here?

Glen