From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Oct 8 11:37:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA06453 for stable-outgoing; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:37:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable) Received: from emout23.mail.aol.com (emout23.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.128]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA06448 for ; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 11:37:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Hetzels@aol.com) From: Hetzels@aol.com Received: (from root@localhost) by emout23.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.7.3/AOL-2.0.0) id OAA21436; Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:36:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 14:36:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <971008133941_1032265457@emout16.mail.aol.com> To: rkw@dataplex.net cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CVSup release identity Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In a message dated 97-10-08 12:22:12 EDT, rkw@dataplex.net writes: > >> I see some value in distinguishing between releases and interim patched > >> versions. However, IMHO, "-CURRENT" and "-STABLE" should be dropped. > > > >I don't agree on dropping the names. Keeping the names alows users to know > >exactly, what they are tracking (CURRENT or STABLE). Only, "uname -v" > should > >say CURRENT, RELEASE, or STABLE, and "uname -r" will show the release level. > > > These names are needed only because you are insisting that they be used in > place of the "2.2" style name. > The only one I am really institing on is the "uname -r" output to show the correct release level. 2.2.x (199710081255) The "uname -v" output has room to indicate what the user is tracking (CURRENT, RELEASE, or STABLE). Currently, a "uname -v" shows: OS (FreeBSD) Version (2.2) Branch (STABLE) Kernel Version (0) Date the Kernel was compiled (Tue Oct 7 10:57:40 CDT 1997) Who Made the Kernel (root@www.my.domain.net) Location of the Kernel Compile Directory (/usr/src/sys/compile/GENERIC) Which of the following would you rather have: ----- #1) FreeBSD 2.2-STABLE #0: Tue Oct 7 10:57:40 CDT 1997 root@www.my.domain.net:/usr/src/sys/compile/GENERIC Currently, the standard. Indicates very clearly what the user is using. By checking with "uname -r", users will be able to view the release level for CURRENT, RELEASE, or STABLE systems. ----- #2) FreeBSD 2.2.x (199710081255) #0: Tue Oct 7 10:57:40 CDT 1997 root@www.my.domain.net:/usr/src/sys/compile/GENERIC FreeBSD 3.0 (199710081255) #0: Tue Oct 7 10:57:40 CDT 1997 root@www.my.domain.net:/usr/src/sys/compile/GENERIC This would indicate a CURRENT system, as it would only use 2 digit version numbers. This has the problem of duplicating the function of "uname -r". "uname -v" should not have to show the release level. ----- #3) FreeBSD 2.2.x #0: Tue Oct 7 10:57:40 CDT 1997 root@www.my.domain.net:/usr/src/sys/compile/GENERIC Simplifies the "uname -v" output, but doesn't indicate to the user if it is a RELEASE or a STABLE system up front. FreeBSD 3.0 #0: Tue Oct 7 10:57:40 CDT 1997 root@www.my.domain.net:/usr/src/sys/compile/GENERIC This would indicate a CURRENT system, as it would only use 2 digit version numbers. By checking with "uname -r", users will be able to view the release level for CURRENT, RELEASE, or STABLE systems. ----- #2 & #3 have the problem of determining if a user is using a STABLE or a RELEASE system. Now who is going to maintain a list of timestamps so that users can check. I would prefer #1, but number #3 has posibilities if only the difference between a RELEASE and STABLE system could be made more apparent. With out having to refer to a list. Unless RELEASE is used, then we might as well stick to using #1. Scot