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
To: FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Changing value of uname -r
uname -r returns 10.0-CURRENT
setenv UNAME_r "9.0-RELEASE"
uname -r now returns 9
> From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Tue Jan 1 11:52:49 2013
> Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:49:17 -0500
> From: Fbsd8
> To: FreeBSD Questions
> Subject: Changing value of uname -r
>
> uname -r returns 10.0-CURRENT
>
> setenv UNAME_r "9.0-RELEASE"
&
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
___
fr
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
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://
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 t
On 21 Dec 2012, at 18:51, Fbsd8 wrote:
> Fleuriot Damien wrote:
>
>> On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Fbsd8 wrote:
>>> When issuing the uname -r command what are the different values possible to
>>> expect?
>>>
>>> So far I have this list.
On Dec 21, 2012, at 9:51 AM, Fbsd8 wrote:
> Fleuriot Damien wrote:
>
>> On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Fbsd8 wrote:
>>> When issuing the uname -r command what are the different values possible to
>>> expect?
>>>
>>> So far I have this list.
Fleuriot Damien wrote:
On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Fbsd8 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-RCy
X.X-RELEASE
X.X
mybsd dam ~
$ uname -r
8.2-STABLE
On Dec 21, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Fbsd8 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
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
David Demelier writes:
>
> 2012/12/15 Lowell Gilbert
>
>> "Anders N." 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 free
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM, David Demelier
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 an additional switc
I hope it will be removed soon, it pollutes the uname -a output.
2012/12/15 Lowell Gilbert
> "Anders N." 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
"Anders N." 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 (sour
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 no
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 n
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-gra
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 combinat
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?
_
gt; 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
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/sr
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
___
ot;
BRANCH="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
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
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:21:46 -0600 (MDT),
>> Dennis Glatting 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
D> build
1.1$
cpu 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
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 fro
Le Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:13:13 +0800,
Aiza 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 fro
-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 infor
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. Is
On 01/06/2010 2:33 ?.?., n dhert wrote:
> Can somebody explain about the -p 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
Can somebody explain about the -p 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 -p only change if
a) a change of the file /boot/kernel/kernel was part of the update
or also if
b
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
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
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
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
>
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, Dec 3, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Andrea Venturoli 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
>
>
>
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
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.
> >
>
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 sh
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 -
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
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
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questi
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
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:06:50 -0500
Robert Huff wrote:
> Can someone explain this:
>
> h...@jerusalem>> sysctl kern.version
> kern.version: FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT #0: Tue Jan 20 10:40:57 EST 2009
> h...@jerusalem.litteratus.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/JERUSALEM
> h
= 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...@t
Trober :
>> 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=
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.
Tr
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.
Tr
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/listin
-RELEASE?
> >>>
> >>> Kris
> >>
> >> As I would expect, it returns nothing at all.
> >
> > Your problem makes no sense then :) The kern.osrelease returns a
> > string compiled into the kernel (see conf/newvers.sh), so if it
> >
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
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
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.
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, b
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
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
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
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
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
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
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
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
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
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
Kris Kennaway wrote:
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
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
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
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
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
ning FreeBSD anymore :-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 "
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
e :-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 th
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 pl
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 bu
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 i
about 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 u
k 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 something
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
>
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
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
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
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
> > re
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 sa
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 6
Oh, wait. I thought 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.
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 6
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 p
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, isn
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 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
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.mydoma
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 15:40:4
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 [EM
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]
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 PROTE
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-RELEA
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 bel
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 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
report
0 sure that you have. I cannot stress that enough.
>
> 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.
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
report
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.
> >>
ailbox 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 patches should correspon
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 version of the system
Today for the first time I applied all the relevant patches
instead an
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 the
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
