uname -r returns 10.0-CURRENT
setenv UNAME_r 9.0-RELEASE
uname -r now returns 9.0-RELEASE
How to reset uname -r to original value without doing
setenv UNAME_r 10.0-CURRENT?
Is there some way just to deactivate the effect of the
setenv UNAME_r so it returns to the real value of the system
Jason Lenthe wrote:
On 01/01/13 12:49, Fbsd8 wrote:
Is there some way just to deactivate the effect of the
setenv UNAME_r so it returns to the real value of the system?
I think you just want to do: unsetenv UNAME_r
Yes that worked.
Thanks
___
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Tue Jan 1 11:52:49 2013
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:49:17 -0500
From: Fbsd8 fb...@a1poweruser.com
To: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Changing value of uname -r
uname -r returns 10.0-CURRENT
setenv UNAME_r 9.0-RELEASE
Robert Bonomi wrote:
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Tue Jan 1 11:52:49 2013
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:49:17 -0500
From: Fbsd8 fb...@a1poweruser.com
To: FreeBSD Questions freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Changing value of uname -r
uname -r returns 10.0-CURRENT
setenv UNAME_r
On 21 Dec 2012, at 18:51, Fbsd8 fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote:
Fleuriot Damien wrote:
On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Fbsd8 fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote:
When issuing the uname -r command what are the different values possible to
expect?
So far I have this list.
Where X.X = major release
When issuing the uname -r command what are the different values possible
to expect?
So far I have this list.
Where X.X = major release . Sub release numbers
Where y = number 1 through 9
X.X-BETAy
X.X-RCy
X.X-RELEASE
X.X-RELEASE-py
X.X-PRERELEASE
X.X-CURRENT
mybsd dam ~
$ uname -r
8.2-STABLE
On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Fbsd8 fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote:
When issuing the uname -r command what are the different values possible to
expect?
So far I have this list.
Where X.X = major release . Sub release numbers
Where y = number 1 through 9
Fleuriot Damien wrote:
On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Fbsd8 fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote:
When issuing the uname -r command what are the different values possible to
expect?
So far I have this list.
Where X.X = major release . Sub release numbers
Where y = number 1 through 9
X.X-BETAy
X.X
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM, David Demelier
demelier.da...@gmail.com wrote:
I hope it will be removed soon, it pollutes the uname -a output.
I don't hope so. It helps us keep track of the exact revision
numbers of deployed servers here. Please don't remove it,
or at least, provide
David Demelier demelier.da...@gmail.com writes:
2012/12/15 Lowell Gilbert freebsd-questions-lo...@be-well.ilk.org
Anders N. wic...@baot.se writes:
Hi. I've noticed in my uname -a on 9.1-RELEASE there is r243826.
This is on a system that upgraded from 9.1-RC3 using freebsd-update
I hope it will be removed soon, it pollutes the uname -a output.
2012/12/15 Lowell Gilbert freebsd-questions-lo...@be-well.ilk.org
Anders N. wic...@baot.se writes:
Hi. I've noticed in my uname -a on 9.1-RELEASE there is r243826.
This is on a system that upgraded from 9.1-RC3 using freebsd
Hi. I've noticed in my uname -a on 9.1-RELEASE there is r243826. This is on
a system that upgraded from 9.1-RC3 using freebsd-update (binary). On another
system, upgraded from 9.0-RELEASE via freebsd-update (source), there is nothing
at all and uname -a looks normal. Two other people I asked
On 12/15/12 13:44, Anders N. wrote:
Hi. I've noticed in my uname -a on 9.1-RELEASE there is r243826. This is on
a system that upgraded from 9.1-RC3 using freebsd-update (binary). On another system, upgraded from
9.0-RELEASE via freebsd-update (source), there is nothing at all and uname
Anders N. wic...@baot.se writes:
Hi. I've noticed in my uname -a on 9.1-RELEASE there is r243826.
This is on a system that upgraded from 9.1-RC3 using freebsd-update
(binary). On another system, upgraded from 9.0-RELEASE via
freebsd-update (source), there is nothing at all and uname -a looks
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 03:09:00PM +0800, joeb1 wrote:
It looks to me that the uname -m and uname -p always have the same
value, such as i386.
Is there some fine-grained difference or some un-documented difference
between them
or some combination were the values would be different?
I
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 11:30:51AM -0700, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 03:09:00PM +0800, joeb1 wrote:
It looks to me that the uname -m and uname -p always have the same
value, such as i386.
Is there some fine-grained difference or some un-documented difference
between
It looks to me that the uname -m and uname -p always have the same
value, such as i386.
Is there some fine-grained difference or some un-documented difference
between them
or some combination were the values would be different?
___
freebsd
I just applied security patch -p4 (last week -p3) to a freebsd 8.2 system
(generic kernel)
# freebsd-update fetch
# freebsd-update install
# ls -la /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh
has date of today and contains
REVISION=8.2
BRANCH=RELEASE-p4
reboot
# uname -r
8.2-RELEASE-p3
still shows -p3 not -p4
=RELEASE-p4
reboot
# uname -r
8.2-RELEASE-p3
still shows -p3 not -p4
# uname -a
FreeBSD mcsbu.cde.ua.ac.be 8.2-RELEASE-p3 FreeBSD 8.2-RELEASE-p3 #0: Tue Sep
27 18:45:57 UTC 2011
r...@amd64-builder.daemonology.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
why?
-p4 was a small patch to linux emulation mode, which
On 07.10.2011 09:01, Jason Helfman wrote:
If your kernel wasn't touched during the update, then uname won't bump.
but as -p4 for 8.2 fixes FreeBSD-SA-11:05.unix, it should have touched the
kernel, shouldn't it?
regards - Michael
___
freebsd-questions
I believe the reason is the following:
The changes were to /boot/GENERIC/linux.ko and
/boot/GENERIC/linux.ko.symbols
and NOT to the *freebsd* kernel /boot/GENERIC/kernel ...
So,the freebsd kernel didn't change, uname -a gets its info from the linux
kernel (not directly from the
/usr/src/sys
the reason is the following:
The changes were to /boot/GENERIC/linux.ko and
/boot/GENERIC/linux.ko.symbols
and NOT to the *freebsd* kernel /boot/GENERIC/kernel ...
So,the freebsd kernel didn't change, uname -a gets its info from the linux
kernel (not directly from the
/usr/src/sys/conf
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:21:46 -0600 (MDT),
Dennis Glatting free...@penx.com said:
D My goal is to provide a mechanism where I can identify that kernels
D built on a group of machines are running the same kernel built from a
D configuration under RCS. How can I customized the current config and
HAMMER
ident GENERIC-1.1
=
Therefore, a uname -i becomes:
btw uname -i
GENERIC-1.1
My goal is to provide a mechanism where I can identify that kernels built
on a group of machines are running the same kernel built from a
configuration under RCS.
How can I
From the console of a jail I issue uname –r and get 8.0-RELEASE-p3,
which is the release level of the host. I know the jail is running a
pristine minimum install of 8.0-RELEASE.
I would think issuing uname from within a jail environment should
respond with the info of the jail environment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/07/2010 07:13:13, Aiza wrote:
From the console of a jail I issue uname –r and get 8.0-RELEASE-p3,
which is the release level of the host. I know the jail is running a
pristine minimum install of 8.0-RELEASE.
The uname information is compiled
Le Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:13:13 +0800,
Aiza aiz...@comclark.com a écrit :
From the console of a jail I issue uname –r and get 8.0-RELEASE-p3,
which is the release level of the host. I know the jail is running a
pristine minimum install of 8.0-RELEASE.
I would think issuing uname from within
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 02:13:13PM +0800, Aiza wrote:
From the console of a jail I issue uname -r and get 8.0-RELEASE-p3,
which is the release level of the host. I know the jail is running a
pristine minimum install of 8.0-RELEASE.
I would think issuing uname from within a jail environment
Can somebody explain about the -plevel one sees in the output of the
uname -r ?
Under *exactly* what conditions the patch level changes to a new value
after you applied a freebsd-update install ?
Does -plevel only change if
a) a change of the file /boot/kernel/kernel was part of the update
On 01/06/2010 2:33 ?.?., n dhert wrote:
Can somebody explain about the -plevel one sees in the output of the
uname -r ?
Under *exactly* what conditions the patch level changes to a new value
after you applied a freebsd-update install ?
If you are using the GENERIC kernel AND the kernel
su-3.2# uname -a
FreeBSD dd.alexus.org 7.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.3-RELEASE #13: Tue Mar 23
20:47:52 UTC 2010 xx...@x.xxx.:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC
amd64
su-3.2#
why is it showing up #13 here? back when I had 7.2-RELEASE-pX i've had
#12, I then did following:
rm -rf /usr/src
csup /usr
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:08:08AM -0400, alexus thus spake:
su-3.2# uname -a
FreeBSD dd.alexus.org 7.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.3-RELEASE #13: Tue Mar 23
20:47:52 UTC 2010 xx...@x.xxx.:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC
amd64
su-3.2#
why is it showing up #13 here? back when I had 7.2-RELEASE-pX
Hi,
alexus wrote:
su-3.2# uname -a
FreeBSD dd.alexus.org 7.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 7.3-RELEASE #13: Tue Mar 23
20:47:52 UTC 2010 xx...@x.xxx.:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC
amd64
su-3.2#
why is it showing up #13 here? back when I had 7.2-RELEASE-pX i've had
#12, I then did following
Hello.
Due to the recent advisories, on an i386 6.3 box, i just did:
cd /usr/src
make update
make buildworld
make kernel KERNCONF=MYKERNEL
make installworld
shutdown -r now
Now uname -a reports 6.3p13, although cat /usr/src/UPDATING gives:
...
20091203: p14 FreeBSD-SA-09:15.ssl
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Andrea Venturoli m...@netfence.it wrote:
Hello.
Due to the recent advisories, on an i386 6.3 box, i just did:
cd /usr/src
make update
make buildworld
make kernel KERNCONF=MYKERNEL
make installworld
shutdown -r now
Now uname -a reports 6.3p13, although
Diego F. Arias R. ha scritto:
If you are using freebsd-update to keep your system up-to-date is
normal. Unless updates apply to kernel it will keep the number of the
last one who patch it.
As I said above, I did a source upgrade.
bye Thanks
av.
On Thu 2009-12-03 14:46:26 UTC+0100, Andrea Venturoli (m...@netfence.it) wrote:
Now uname -a reports 6.3p13, although cat /usr/src/UPDATING gives:
...
20091203: p14 FreeBSD-SA-09:15.ssl,
FreeBSD-SA-09:17.freebsd-update
Disable SSL renegotiation in order to protect against
I have wondered why my build number in the 'uname' output not is
incrementet for each build I make of the system, it shows '#0'
all the time.
Example output of 'uname -a':
FreeBSD mugin-LAN.localhost 8.0-CURRENT
FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT #0: Thu Jun 18 12:41:05 CEST 2009
r...@mugin-lan.localhost:/usr
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 02:40:47PM +0200, Harry Matthiesen Jensen typed:
I have wondered why my build number in the 'uname' output not is
incrementet for each build I make of the system, it shows '#0'
all the time.
Example output of 'uname -a':
FreeBSD mugin-LAN.localhost 8.0-CURRENT
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 03:09:57PM +0200, Ruben de Groot wrote:
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 02:40:47PM +0200, Harry Matthiesen Jensen typed:
I have wondered why my build number in the 'uname' output not is
incrementet for each build I make of the system, it shows '#0'
all the time.
Do you
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 03:31:38PM +0200, Harry Matthiesen Jensen wrote:
I have wondered why my build number in the 'uname' output not is
incrementet for each build I make of the system, it shows '#0'
all the time.
Do you remove /usr/obj between builds?
Yes, and going back in time
Hi.
I believe YES, based on
[1]http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.b
in/uname/uname.c?rev=1.14.28.1;content-type=text%2Fplain .
See NATIVE_SYSCTL2_GET(version, CTL_KERN, KERN_VERSION), on source
abov= e.
I hope I've helped.
Trober
tro...@trober.com
Hi.
I believe YES, based on [1]http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.
cgi/src/usr.bin/uname/uname.c?rev=1.14.28.1;content-type=3
Dtext= %2Fplain.
See = NATIVE_SYSCTL2_GET(ver= sion, CTL_KERN, KERN_VERSION), on
source above.
I hope I've helpe= d.
Trober
tro...@trober.com
Trober tro...@trober.com:
Am I correct in believing uname gets its information from the
kern.version sysctl?
I believe YES, based on
[1]http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/uname/uname.c
See = NATIVE_SYSCTL2_GET(ver= sion, CTL_KERN, KERN_VERSION), on
source above
= Hi!
kern.version is small part only of output uname command= .
uname command concatane KERN_OSTYPE, KERN_HOSTNAME,
KERN_OSRELEASE,nb= sp;KERN_VERSION (not in this order) to show
output.
I hope I've he= lped.
Trober
tro...@trober.com
uname -a
FreeBSD jerusalem.litteratus.org 7.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT #0:
Do you have any UNAME_* variables set in the environment?
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
Hi!
Wow! Good question!
Sorry, I had not seen the difference between 7 and 8 in uname and sysctl
output. Sorry.
What your /usr/obj/usr/src/include/vers.h file say in:
SCCSSTR
VERSTR
RELSTR
char ostype
char osrelease
int osreldate
kern_ident
Thanks.
Trober
tro...@trober.com
Trober writes:
What your /usr/obj/usr/src/include/vers.h file say in:
No such file.
Robert Huff
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
Am I correct in believing uname gets its information from the
kern.version sysctl?
Robert Huff
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
a
string compiled into the kernel (see conf/newvers.sh), so if it
returns 6.2-RELEASE then that string must be present.
Kris
So, have you checked to make sure your uname is accurate and not just
an echoing shell script of sorts? You never know, maybe someone
hijacked your uname before you
.
Your problem makes no sense then :) The kern.osrelease returns a
string compiled into the kernel (see conf/newvers.sh), so if it
returns 6.2-RELEASE then that string must be present.
Kris
So, have you checked to make sure your uname is accurate and not just
an echoing shell script
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
snip
I get the following from uname -a:
FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6:
Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
/usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386
However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
snip
I get the following from uname -a:
FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6:
Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
/usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386
However, I rebuilt world, more
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
snip
I get the following from uname -a:
FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6:
Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
/usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386
However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
snip
I get the following from uname -a:
FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6:
Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
/usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386
However, I rebuilt world, more
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
snip
I get the following from uname -a:
FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6:
Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
/usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386
However, I
Your problem makes no sense then :)
Up until now, you've told me a couple things
I might not have already known :-D
The kern.osrelease returns a string
compiled into the kernel (see conf/newvers.sh), so if it returns
6.2-RELEASE then that string must be present.
I'd like to think so,
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Your problem makes no sense then :)
Up until now, you've told me a couple things
I might not have already known :-D
The kern.osrelease returns a string compiled into the kernel (see
conf/newvers.sh), so if it returns 6.2-RELEASE then that string must
be present.
On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:40:56 -0600
Kevin Kinsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Being as named is now crapping out (bad system call), I'm thinking
I'll try a Windows solution (not that I'd consider using a Winbox
here, but I may backup the data, wipe the disk, and try again)
unless lightning strikes
the following from uname -a:
FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6:
Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
/usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386
However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues,
twice in February with RELENG_6 in the supfile. This
didn't change
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Question: why is uname reporting the {wrong} build?
cd /usr/src
sudo make installkernel
--
Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
o:703.549.2050x206
Senior System Admin - Riderway, Inc.
http
:-D )
I get the following from uname -a:
FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6:
Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
/usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386
However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues,
twice in February with RELENG_6 in the supfile
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
snip
I get the following from uname -a:
FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6:
Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
/usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386
However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
snip
I get the following from uname -a:
FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6:
Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
/usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386
However, I rebuilt world, more
Kris Kennaway wrote:
snip
I get the following from uname -a:
FreeBSD archangel.daleco.biz 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #6:
Sat Jun 2 09:22:50 CDT 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
/usr/obj/backup/src/sys/GENERIC i386
However, I rebuilt world, more or less without issues,
twice in February
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:03:42 +0100 Kris Kennaway wrote:
Can this even be done and if so how?
See the manpage, and the UNAME_* variables.
One other thing: Will that change the way the system reacts in any way?
Apps should run normally (well, a browser may give a wrong plattform
information but
Christian Baer wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:03:42 +0100 Kris Kennaway wrote:
Can this even be done and if so how?
See the manpage, and the UNAME_* variables.
One other thing: Will that change the way the system reacts in any way?
Apps should run normally (well, a browser may give a wrong
-CURRENT system, but he also does that on
production systems.
Now I don't want to judge him about that, but he is a bit sensitive about
the output of uname. The version is very important to him. :-)
The prank I want to pull is to somehow change the output of uname -m to
read something different
that which is ok for some -CURRENT system, but he also does that on
production systems.
Now I don't want to judge him about that, but he is a bit sensitive about
the output of uname. The version is very important to him. :-)
The prank I want to pull is to somehow change the output of uname -m to
read
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:03:42 +0100 Kris Kennaway wrote:
Can this even be done and if so how?
See the manpage, and the UNAME_* variables.
I already did that once and it didn't work out. I just found the reason:
I'm too thick. :-/ I though all the letters had to be capitals, so I set
UNAME_M
Hi,
I noticed that using freebsd-update on a freshly installed
6.2-RELEASE system yielded the following mismatch:
$ uname -vp
FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE-p4 #0: Thu Apr 26 17:55:55 UTC 2007
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386
The results of running a freebsd-update fetch give:
zcnew
Vinny wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that using freebsd-update on a freshly installed
6.2-RELEASE system yielded the following mismatch:
$ uname -vp
FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE-p4 #0: Thu Apr 26 17:55:55 UTC 2007
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386
The results of running a freebsd-update
In the last episode (Apr 15), Pieter de Goeje said:
On Sunday 15 April 2007, Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Apr 15), Roger Olofsson said:
Yesterday I csup:ed 2 machines to latest using same cvsup-server
for both. After the standard procedure of doing:
make buildworld
Dear Mailing List,
Yesterday I csup:ed 2 machines to latest using same cvsup-server for
both. After the standard procedure of doing:
make buildworld
make buildkernel
make installkernel
reboot
make installworld
..on both machines, one says 'FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #2' and the other says
'FreeBSD
In the last episode (Apr 15), Roger Olofsson said:
Yesterday I csup:ed 2 machines to latest using same cvsup-server for
both. After the standard procedure of doing:
make buildworld
make buildkernel
make installkernel
reboot
make installworld
..on both machines, one says
On Sunday 15 April 2007, Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Apr 15), Roger Olofsson said:
Yesterday I csup:ed 2 machines to latest using same cvsup-server for
both. After the standard procedure of doing:
make buildworld
make buildkernel
make installkernel
reboot
make
Dan Nelson writes:
..on both machines, one says 'FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #2' and
the other says 'FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #6'.
What does the number after the #-sign mean?
It's the number of times you have rebuilt your kernel.
... with that particular kernel code base.
I have two boxes I've updated so far to 6.2.
uname -a returns two different strings:
FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12
20:01:29 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386
FreeBSD box2.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #4
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 10:37:19AM -0800, Jay Chandler wrote:
I have two boxes I've updated so far to 6.2.
uname -a returns two different strings:
FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12
20:01:29 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 10:37:19AM -0800, Jay Chandler wrote:
I have two boxes I've updated so far to 6.2.
uname -a returns two different strings:
FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12
20:01:29 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr
On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Jay Chandler wrote:
FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri
Jan 12 20:01:29 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/
src/sys/SMP i386
FreeBSD box2.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #4: Sat
Jan 13 15:40:40 PST 2007
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Jay Chandler wrote:
FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan
12 20:01:29 PST 2007
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386
FreeBSD box2.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #4: Sat Jan
13
On 1/15/07, Garrett Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Jay Chandler wrote:
FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan
12 20:01:29 PST 2007
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386
FreeBSD box2.mydomain.com
On Monday 15 January 2007 21:37, Jay Chandler wrote:
I have two boxes I've updated so far to 6.2.
uname -a returns two different strings:
FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12
20:01:29 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SMP i386
FreeBSD
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 11:43:52AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
[...]
Hmm.. that's a new 'feature'. Can that be disabled in any way?
-Garrett
That's not new, it's been around for more than a decade. You can
`disable' it by cleaning out the kernel build directory prior to
building a new kernel.
On Jan 15, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
The number of times you have rebuilt the kernel.
(This number gets reset when the OS version gets bumped, I believe.)
---Chuck
Hmm.. that's a new 'feature'. Can that be disabled in any way?
This feature, whatever you might think of it,
Jonathan Chen wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 11:43:52AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
[...]
Hmm.. that's a new 'feature'. Can that be disabled in any way?
-Garrett
That's not new, it's been around for more than a decade. You can
`disable' it by cleaning out the kernel build directory
On 15 янв. 2007, at 21:43, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:37 AM, Jay Chandler wrote:
FreeBSD box1.mydomain.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri
Jan 12 20:01:29 PST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/
src/sys/SMP i386
FreeBSD box2.mydomain.com
that the 2 version strings were concatenated, but
after looking at the original post the guy noted that uname -a was
invoked on 2 different machines. Duh.
-Garrett
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo
Hello.
Please also answer to my mailbox as I'm not on the list.
After upgrading by sources and build world, uname correctly
reports the current version of the system
Today for the first time I applied all the relevant patches
instead and all went well. The box was 5.3-RELEASE-p23.
The applied
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Roberto Nunnari wrote:
Does anybody know how can you make uname report the
real version? What if you recompile the kernel after
patching the system? Would that do the trick?
As far as I know, uname gets the version information from the kernel.
So yes, if you recompile
not on the list.
After upgrading by sources and build world, uname correctly
reports the current version of the system
Today for the first time I applied all the relevant patches
instead and all went well. The box was 5.3-RELEASE-p23.
The applied patches should correspond to 5.3-RELEASE-p24, but:
# uname
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:26:22PM +0100, Roberto Nunnari wrote:
Ceri Davies wrote:
On 12 Jan 2006, at 12:32, Roberto Nunnari wrote:
Hello.
Please also answer to my mailbox as I'm not on the list.
After upgrading by sources and build world, uname correctly
reports the current
Ceri Davies wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:26:22PM +0100, Roberto Nunnari wrote:
Ceri Davies wrote:
On 12 Jan 2006, at 12:32, Roberto Nunnari wrote:
Hello.
Please also answer to my mailbox as I'm not on the list.
After upgrading by sources and build world, uname correctly
reports
.
I checked the patches (cpio.patch ee.patch texindex5x.patch) and none
of them tries to change src/sys/conf/newvers.sh nor src/UPDATING
So.. as I didn't find any other patches that are post p23, I edited
newvers.sh, build a new kernel and rebooted. uname -r is now happy.
If you had set
Ceri Davies wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 03:26:22PM +0100, Roberto Nunnari wrote:
Ceri Davies wrote:
On 12 Jan 2006, at 12:32, Roberto Nunnari wrote:
Hello.
Please also answer to my mailbox as I'm not on the list.
After upgrading by sources and build world, uname correctly
reports
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:04:07PM +0100, Roberto Nunnari wrote:
I checked the patches (cpio.patch ee.patch texindex5x.patch) and none
of them tries to change src/sys/conf/newvers.sh nor src/UPDATING
There is an ipfw one as well.
Cheers,
Ceri
--
Only two things are infinite, the universe
Ceri Davies wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 09:04:07PM +0100, Roberto Nunnari wrote:
I checked the patches (cpio.patch ee.patch texindex5x.patch) and none
of them tries to change src/sys/conf/newvers.sh nor src/UPDATING
There is an ipfw one as well.
Cheers,
Ceri
Thank you Ceri, but I
Used the default email when sending this message
and therefore it did not reached [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Original Message
Subject: Re: uname -a output does not change after kernel upgrade
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 00:08:45 +0300
From: Jurgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Daniel Gerzo [EMAIL
I have fixed the problem.
1) Removed the first SATA disk (ad4) and booted from ad6.
Then I got correct kernel and userland (5.4-STABLE)
2) Swapped SATA cables to boot from ad6 (it became ad4).
---
# uname -a
FreeBSD server.example.com 5.4-STABLE FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE #2: Sat May 21 18:45:32
1 - 100 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
