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
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
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
reports the
On 1/12/06, Roberto Nunnari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ceri Davies wrote:
>
> > That would work, but if you don't already have that string then there is
> > a possibility that you don't have all the patches, so please only change
> > it if you are %100 sure that you have. I cannot stress that
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 the
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
> >>
Thank you Ceri and Jaap for your time.
Ceri, edit src/sys/conf/newvers.sh and replace
BRANCH="RELEASE-p23"
with
BRANCH="RELEASE-p24"
would be enough??
Best regards.
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
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 and all w
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
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
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
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 &
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
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
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
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
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 FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE #1: Fri Apr 29 23:04:18 EEST 2005
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
all other upgrades.
After this procedure the /kernel is updated. The creation date of
/kernel is today and:
#strings /kernel |grep 4.9
FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE-p4 #0: Fri Mar 26 14:16:33
CET 2004 4.9-RELEASE-p4
So it seems the kernel is updated, but the output of uname -a is still:
# uname -a
FreeBSD 4.9
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
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
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 represent? I assume an RC
Thanks
--
Bob
"Play is the wo
Hi,
4.5-RELEASE FreeBSD 4.5-RELEASE #0: Mon Jan 28 14:31:56 GMT 2002
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/src/sys/compile/GENERIC i386
is the output I can only boot kernel.GENERIC manually
Doron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
34 matches
Mail list logo
