Re: Why did main's [so: 15's] new aarch64 snapshots have PINE64 (not -LTS) instead of RPI? (has -LTS too)

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:35:39PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
> https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-snapshots/2023-October/000308.html
> [New FreeBSD snapshots available: main (20231019 fb7140b1f928)]
> 
> reported (note "RPI"):
> 
> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 GENERIC
> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 RPI
> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 PINE64-LTS
> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 PINEBOOK
> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 ROCK64
> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 ROCKPRO64
> o 15.0-CURRENT riscv64 GENERIC
> o 15.0-CURRENT riscv64 GENERICSD
> 
> https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-snapshots/2023-October/000310.html
> [New FreeBSD snapshots available: main (20231026 d3a36e4b7459) ]
> 
> reported (note "PINE64" without "-LTS" and lack of "RPI"):
> 
> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 GENERIC
> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 PINE64
> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 PINE64-LTS
> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 PINEBOOK
> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 ROCK64
> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 ROCKPRO64
> o 15.0-CURRENT riscv64 GENERIC
> o 15.0-CURRENT riscv64 GENERICSD
> 
> 

Last week, RPI succeeded while PINE64 failed.  This week, the opposite
occurred.

Glen

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=FA/q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----