On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 07:56:50AM +0200, Bernd Ernesti wrote: > Hi Perry, > > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 09:29:37PM +0000, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > > > Module Name: src > > Committed By: perry > > Date: Tue Jul 15 21:29:37 UTC 2008 > > > > Modified Files: > > src/sys/arch/i386/stand/boot: boot2.c > > src/sys/arch/i386/stand/dosboot: main.c > > src/sys/arch/i386/stand/netboot: main.c > > src/sys/arch/i386/stand/pxeboot: main.c > > > > Log Message: > > Change the x86 boot blocks so they don't include builder login and date. > > > > For now, we include kernel revision as a way of allowing users to > > notice that boot blocks have gotten very old, so the first line of the > > printout looks like this (depending on the particular block): > > > > >> NetBSD/x86 BIOS Boot, Revision 3.4 (from NetBSD 5.0) > > > > This may be changed a bit pending feedback. (Some people think that > > the kernel revision shouldn't be there at all, for example.) > > > > Part of the project to assure that bit-identical sources produce > > bit-identical release binaries. > > I asked you before to bring this topic up on tech-kern, where you would > get rational why this should not be done. > > David Laight and Simon Burge allready brought up there reason for why > this won't work and I have the same concerns. > > Such things should have been discussed on a PUBLIC mailing before changing it. Uhm, if discussions are supposed to be on this list, why reference discussions that weren't? The one thing I'd like us to be able to do is add custom/site-local extentions to a version string. If we could optionally label a build "wrstuden debug 080716" for instance, I think that would cover all the objections I've heard favoring date-based strings. Obviously official releases would basically use "" for said string. But I could have misunderstood the objections. :-) Take care, Bill
Attachment:
pgpQdIWqkUlGq.pgp
Description: PGP signature