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

Glen Barber <[email protected]> Fri, 27 Oct 2023 21:37:59 +0000

Newsgroups	gmane.os.freebsd.devel.arm
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 02:26:19PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
> 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.
> 

No worries at all.  It is a valid inquiry - especially since I honestly
was expecting another PINE64 failure this week.

Glen

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)