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
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
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
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
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:
On Mar 4, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
What about strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 6.2-RELEASE?
Kris
As I would expect, it returns nothing at all.
Your problem makes no sense then :) The kern.osrelease returns a
On Wednesday 05 March 2008 10:11:42 Joshua Isom wrote:
On Mar 4, 2008, at 2:14 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
What about strings /boot/kernel/kernel | grep 6.2-RELEASE?
Kris
As I would expect, it returns nothing at all.
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 or
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 or
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
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.
Kevin Kinsey wrote:
Hello,
Been bashing myself on the head for a few days, so I'm
looking for a little help. If you've a big stick, read
on (and apologies if poor formatting, I'm using an unfamiliar
keyboard, unfamiliar mailer, and I'm not even sure if this
system is running FreeBSD anymore
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 or
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 with
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
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
Chuck Swiger wrote:
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
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
:
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
Hi freebsd-questions,
Saturday, May 21, 2005, 8:41:19 PM, you wrote about:
Hi,
I have upgraded FreeBSD server from 5.3-RELEASE to 5.4-STABLE (tag=RELENG_5)
but when I run 'uname -a' it displays the same message as before:
---
server-98 uname -a
FreeBSD server.example.com 5.3-RELEASE
Daniel,
How can I now which kernel is loaded?
I'm actually struggling with RAID-1 and gmirror issue
that I wanted to ask when 'uname -a' issue is fixed.
Here is --- cat /boot/loader.conf --
geom_mirror_load=YES
kern.geom.mirror.debug=2
kern.geom.mirror.timeout=0
I remembered that I had
Hello freebsd-questions,
Saturday, May 21, 2005, 8:41:19 PM, you typed the following:
Hi,
I have upgraded FreeBSD server from 5.3-RELEASE to 5.4-STABLE (tag=RELENG_5)
but when I run 'uname -a' it displays the same message as before:
---
server-98 uname -a
FreeBSD server.example.com
Yes, I rebooted but uname -a showed that it was the old kernel.
I was not sure about it and proceeded with userland.
Daniel Gerzo wrote:
After that I also rebuilt the kernel by
# cd /usr/src/sys/i386/conf/
# config SERVER
# cd ../../compile/SERVER
# make depend
# make
# make install
another
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:32:19 +1000, August Simonelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:11:47 -0500, Donald J. O'Neill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
August,
I've been following this thread today. It's very interesting. It appears
to me, you mentioned your mistake in your first
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 04:40:50PM +1000, August Simonelli wrote:
snip
well, the rebuild has worked fine. i think my symlinking was indeed
messed up. i followed everyone's advice and didn't use a symlink; I
kept my custom config in the same location as GENERIC and just copied
it elsewhere for
On 2004-08-25 16:40, August Simonelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well, the rebuild has worked fine. i think my symlinking was indeed
messed up. i followed everyone's advice and didn't use a symlink; I
kept my custom config in the same location as GENERIC and just copied
it elsewhere for backup
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 08:20:51PM +1000, August Simonelli wrote:
Hi all,
I recently did the following:
installed FreeBSD 5.2.1 from the iso
cvsup'd the source (using tag=RELENG_5_2)
followed section 19 of the handbook
followed section 8 for the kernel rebuild and did a custom kernel
August
What does your symlink look like? So you put the newly built kernel in
/root/kernels, then did something like?:
# ln -s /root/kernels/mykernel /boot/kernel/kernel
I followed the example in 8.3:
# cd /usr/src/sys/i386/conf
# mkdir /root/kernels
# cp GENERIC
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 08:32:48AM +1000, August Simonelli wrote:
August
What does your symlink look like? So you put the newly built kernel in
/root/kernels, then did something like?:
# ln -s /root/kernels/mykernel /boot/kernel/kernel
I followed the example in 8.3:
# cd
I apologize, when you said:
... did a custom kernel (placing in /root/kernels ...
I took it too literally, thinking that for some odd reason you had put
the actual built (binary) kernel into /root/kernels and were symlinking
from /boot/kernel to that directory, as opposed to simply
August,
I've been following this thread today. It's very interesting. It appears
to me, you mentioned your mistake in your first post.
did a mergemaster and didn't accept any changes (it was a fresh
system) rebooted and logged in
Without accepting those changes, you kept what you had. It
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:11:47 -0500, Donald J. O'Neill
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
August,
I've been following this thread today. It's very interesting. It appears
to me, you mentioned your mistake in your first post.
did a mergemaster and didn't accept any changes (it was a fresh
system)
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:39:10AM -0500, Bob Collins wrote:
This is a follow-up question regarding uname -a. After CVSup, making
world, making a new kernel etc, when I run uname -a it reports
4.9-RELEASE #0. Should the #0 portion be a higher number? Also what
exactly does that number
On Tue, Feb 3, 2004, Jonathan Chen clacked the keyboard to produce:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 11:39:10AM -0500, Bob Collins wrote:
This is a follow-up question regarding uname -a. After CVSup, making
world, making a new kernel etc, when I run uname -a it reports
4.9-RELEASE #0. Should the #0
The following is my most recent email message to someone who was
helping me with a very odd uname issue. I hope that this reporting of the
final events (oh-god-pleaselet-this-be-done-and-over-with) helps someone
else some day. The offer that I make at the end of my message is genuine.
If
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Kent Stewart wrote:
On Friday 26 December 2003 11:05 am, Jaime wrote:
Are you sure that you are building and installing a kernel. That would be
about the only thing that wouldn't update your boot message.
I am completely certain. I've used make buildkernel
On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 02:22:27PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Kent Stewart wrote:
On Friday 26 December 2003 11:05 am, Jaime wrote:
Are you sure that you are building and installing a kernel. That would be
about the only thing that wouldn't update your boot
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Erik Trulsson wrote:
And you did reboot as well, so as to actually use the new kernel?
Yes.
(Just asking since you didn't say explicitly that you had done that.)
Fair enough. We all would have felt pretty dumb if it was
something that obvious and yet we
Did you do a make kernel KERNCONF=YOURKERNELFILE, too?
I'm only asking because you mentioned make world, and while that rebuilds the
OS, it doesn't make (or install) the kernel.
I have to ask simple questions; the problem, if not simple, is flat-out weird.
Tim Kellers
CPE/NJIT
On Friday 26
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, T Kellers wrote:
Did you do a make kernel KERNCONF=YOURKERNELFILE, too?
Yes. I followed the directions in the /usr/src/UPDATING file that
I have followed at least 8 times previously and successfully on this very
same server over the last few years.
cvsup -g -L 2
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:11:20 -0500 (EST)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, T Kellers wrote:
Did you do a make kernel KERNCONF=YOURKERNELFILE, too?
Yes. I followed the directions in the /usr/src/UPDATING file that
I have followed at least 8 times previously and
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Tim Kellers wrote:
I'm building world/kernel on a spare box right now to see if it shakes
an idea or two loose. I'm also wondering if your /usr/src files are
actually building a new world, too. Trying to think of what might break
if you are running a STABLE world with a
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 1:22 PM
To: Kent Stewart
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: uname weirdness after kernel/OS update
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Kent Stewart wrote:
On Friday 26 December 2003 11:05 am, Jaime wrote:
Are you sure that you are building
:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Kent Stewart'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: uname weirdness after kernel/OS update
Try a rm -rf /usr/src/* and then rebuild using the config method from
/usr/src/sys/i386/conf with make depend; make; make install after
configuring.
HTH
Eric F Crist
President
Hi Charles,
'CUSTOM' is the name of the kernel you built. My machine is called huey, but the
build is called DUEY.
$ uname -a
FreeBSD huey.dekka.com 4.8-STABLE FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE #0: Fri Oct 10 03:02:30 PDT
2003
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/DUEY i386
Charles Howse wrote:
Hi,
I
Isn't that output the box it was compiled on and not the current name
of your host?
On Saturday, October 11, 2003, at 04:45 PM, Charles Howse wrote:
Hi,
I recently changed the hostname of one of my machines in /etc/rc.conf.
Now my uname -v output is still showing the old name.
I've run uname -a
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 03:45:14PM -0500, Charles Howse wrote:
Hi,
I recently changed the hostname of one of my machines in /etc/rc.conf.
Now my uname -v output is still showing the old name.
I've run uname -a here so you can see the complete output, the -v stuff
comes after the '#0:'
Will
On Saturday, October 11, 2003, at 04:45 PM, Charles Howse wrote:
Hi,
I recently changed the hostname of one of my machines in
/etc/rc.conf.
Now my uname -v output is still showing the old name.
I've run uname -a here so you can see the complete output,
the -v stuff
comes after the
Charles Howse wrote:
Hi,
I recently changed the hostname of one of my machines in
/etc/rc.conf.
Now my uname -v output is still showing the old name.
I've run uname -a here so you can see the complete output,
the -v stuff
comes after the '#0:'
Will this change with a rebuild?
On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 03:45:14PM -0500, Charles Howse wrote:
Hi,
I recently changed the hostname of one of my machines in
/etc/rc.conf.
Now my uname -v output is still showing the old name.
I've run uname -a here so you can see the complete output,
the -v stuff
comes after the
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 03:03:34PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
According to /usr/include/sys/utsname.h, there is a 32-byte limit on
the string that holds the hostname. It looks like it could be boosted
without much trouble, but *anything* that used the utsname structure
would need to be
Daniel Bye [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Morning all,
I have just come across something that strikes me as a little peculiar. I
don't know if it's a FreeBSD peculiarity, or an Exim oddity.
My MTA is exim 4.20. I had left the $primary_hostname unset in my config
file, expecting exim to take
69 matches
Mail list logo
