Re: Why did main's [so: 15's] new aarch64 snapshots have PINE64 (not -LTS) instead of RPI? (has -LTS too)
Mark Millard <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.freebsd.devel.arm |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Oct 27, 2023, at 11:28, Glen Barber <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. I should have looked at more history instead of just using the 2. Sorry. === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com