From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 30 20:03:13 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEAC8738; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:03:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "wonkity.com", Issuer "wonkity.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90B0ABEA; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:03:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id s9UK3BSI055334 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:03:11 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/Submit) with ESMTP id s9UK3BoK055331; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:03:11 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:03:11 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: John Baldwin Subject: Re: Small motd nit in 10.1 In-Reply-To: <201410301554.03504.jhb@freebsd.org> Message-ID: References: <8C81A636-D2B5-4EFB-9EA3-58E88E16CA94@spam.lifeforms.nl> <93E9657A-737E-4705-A0E5-01F9E9110261@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> <201410301554.03504.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (BSF 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:03:11 -0600 (MDT) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Walter Hop X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:03:14 -0000 On Thu, 30 Oct 2014, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:47:42 pm Paul Mather wrote: >> >> The potential confusion arises because freebsd-version agrees with >> freebsd-update, but uname doesn't always. If you track FreeBSD via >> freebsd-update, uname only gets bumped when the kernel is updated. If >> you want to know which version of FreeBSD you're running, which command >> is more accurate: freebsd-version or uname -a? I would argue the former >> (freebsd-version). > > A fact I continue to bemoan. :( > >> If you track FreeBSD via source updates, freebsd-version and uname -a >> match each other, so long as you update kernel and world together. >> >> Consider the system below, updated using freebsd-update after the last >> advisory causing an update to 10.0-RELEASE: >> >> ===== >> % freebsd-version >> 10.0-RELEASE-p11 >> % uname -a >> FreeBSD chumby.dlib.vt.edu 10.0-RELEASE-p10 FreeBSD 10.0-RELEASE-p10 #0: Mon > Oct 20 12:38:37 UTC 2014 root@amd64- > builder.daemonology.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC i386 >> ===== > > The problem, of course, is that if you are obtaining the version for a bug > report or an e-mail to the lists, the latter output provides more details > (e.g. architecture as Warren noted) even though it is stale due to > implementation details of freebsd-update. There is room on that line to show both: Show details of the FreeBSD installation: uname -a ; freebsd-version Or some combination like that.