Other than bumping .Dd of the manpage, LGTM.

IN general direction looks good to me: for a multi-target universe build with a shared KERNCONFS list, a KERNCONF that does not exist for a particular TARGET should not abort the entire build.

I think we also want to create drm-69-kmod? My i7-1370P system works with 6.9 (so as 6.6 but 6.9 works better) but has some hanging issues with 6.12. While I'm trying to debug and provide more useful information, having 6.9 is important to me.

got it

In D37241#1304395, @lwhsu wrote:

this should be merged.

this should be merged.

In D56381#1295504, @ziaee wrote:

note, i like a blank line at the end of scripts for cat reasons. if we don't want this, i can remove it, but it doesn't hurt anything and we do it all over the place.

In D56381#1295529, @ziaee wrote:

use logic inspired from @lwhsu to prevent reboot if nothing happened. compare the file size in bytes of the pkg database instead of using pkg inf and checksum to save water/coal. tested on my laptop

In D56381#1295532, @ivy wrote:

@lwhsu out of interest, how do you end up with a system that has FreeBSD-base packages installed but doesn't have pkg bootstrapped?

I think in general it's good. There are 2 stuff I'd like to check:

btw, you can try to run it with rclint, but I don't usually follow "Do not quote values unless necessary" error.

Hi, I am also working on this and didn't know this is earlier than me. I think this one is more complete while mine is only focusing on FreeBSD-base repo. However I guess there are still something useful (or not, as I'm still testing):

• bootstrap/update pkg
• only reboot when there is pkg updated

In D54817#1294097, @kp wrote:

In D54817#1294095, @lwhsu wrote:

Maybe we should rename ai-policy to ai-note. During the many and length meetings, discussions, a "policy" cannot please everyone.

The current situation and the truth is that people are already using it, and we can't stop them. A strong "NO" will just let some people lie and pretend not using it, or worse, we lost some good contributions.

I simply do not understand this argument. We can indeed not 100% guarantee that no one would commit LLM generated code if we stated an explicit policy against this.
But neither can we guarantee that no one would commit copyright infringing code, but we still have a strong policy against it.

Maybe we should rename ai-policy to ai-note. During the many and length meetings, discussions, a "policy" cannot please everyone.

In D56354#1289604, @se wrote:

The tests complete in 3 seconds on my amd64 system.
I do assume that the 100 times slower execition on riscv64 is due to inefficient emulation of that platform?
Instead of patching the timeout in individual ports, I believe the parameters in the CI system should be adjusted to account for the slow execution speed of emulated systems.
Therefore, I do not want to set the timeout to such a high value for all platforms.
If there is consensus that changing individual ports is required, I'd make the timeout adjustment depend on the architecture (apparently, only riscv64 is affected).

Usually I'm not a fan of increasing timeout but I think we should do it in this case.

@oshogbo I think you can commit this, as you're earlier than the patch is created to https://bugs.freebsd.org/286702 , btw, the current policy is that the cross-repo commit is encouraged and no really need explicitly approval. Of course, asking review is still encouraged, just like in any repository.

The only thing we need more is bump the PORTREVISION.

See also: https://bugs.freebsd.org/286702

This one should be in the list of blanket approval.

In D55893#1278897, @kib wrote:

For now, I suggest to #ifdef 0 the ADD_TEST(), then revert it when the updated test is written.

Does this need MFC?

Quick response: