From owner-freebsd-stable Fri Aug 3 15:13:52 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from poontang.schulte.org (poontang.schulte.org [209.134.156.197]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDAED37B401 for ; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 15:13:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from christopher@schulte.org) Received: from schulte-laptop.schulte.org (nb-65.netbriefings.com [209.134.134.65]) by poontang.schulte.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A3BFD157D; Fri, 3 Aug 2001 17:13:47 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010803170055.03355828@pop.schulte.org> X-Sender: schulte@pop.schulte.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 17:13:29 -0500 To: Mike Meyer , ian j hart From: Christopher Schulte Subject: Re: RELENG_4_3 calls itself -RELEASE? Cc: "stable@FreeBSD.ORG" In-Reply-To: <15211.7879.635254.595670@guru.mired.org> References: <3B6AF5AB.5116FD56@ntlworld.com> <2.1-7761648-395-A-OEWW@smtp-server.mmcable.com> <3B6AF5AB.5116FD56@ntlworld.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 04:59 PM 8/3/2001 -0500, Mike Meyer wrote: >A very unreliable one. Given N commits on the branch, you have N+1 >possible states for the system to be in. If you leave the name as is, >you can't tell the difference between any of them. If you change the >name, you can only tell the difference between 1 of them and rest, and you >have N states you can't tell the difference between. If you're using >that to decide whether or not your systems are in some way "safe", you >need to be hit with *real* clue stick. Don't people keep old fashioned status-logs on their servers? Something as easy as: system.foo.org FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE 4.3.0p9 (RELENG_4_3) #0: Sat Jul 28 01:49:03 CDT 2001 cvsup: RELENG_4_3 @ Sat Jul 28 01:33:33 CDT 2001 and make world|kernel vulnerabilities: NONE For each box you maintain, update vulnerability status when new problem report hits the fan. Update when you cvsup, make world, patch parts of source and so on. The OS should report its 'patch' level more accurately, but the problem is there are far too many ways to update a box. Do I cvsup and make world? Do I cvsup and only install newly changed binaries? Maybe I manually apply a patch and rebuild part of my source. Or use the binary patches? Install a third party binary to replace FreeBSD's service altogether? You get the point. FreeBSD's flexibility comes back to shoot itself in the foot, here. No matter which approach you take, documentation may be a viable solution. >-- >Mike Meyer http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ >Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. --chris To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message