From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 6 04:38:30 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3CF316A419 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 04:38:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erik@cederstrand.dk) Received: from mail.itu.dk (pluto.itu.dk [130.226.142.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80BF113C4A7 for ; Tue, 6 Nov 2007 04:38:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erik@cederstrand.dk) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.0.0.3]) by mail.itu.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id F354832D2A3; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:58:04 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at itu.dk Received: from superman.itu.dk ([130.226.142.5]) by localhost (daredevil.itu.dk [130.226.142.26]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nj+dDIWt3y-E; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:57:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from wimac.littlebit.dk (unknown [85.233.238.191]) by superman.itu.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B2B9E6B0; Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:57:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <472F91B8.1000506@cederstrand.dk> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:57:12 +0100 From: Erik Cederstrand User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Horne References: <20071105144320.GA3811@aurora.oekb.co.at> <472F32CE.6050306@cederstrand.dk> <20071105094415.7ubd7cvhicwwocos@webmail.dfwlp.org> In-Reply-To: <20071105094415.7ubd7cvhicwwocos@webmail.dfwlp.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Rebuilding kernel/system to a state "back-in-time"? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:38:30 -0000 Jonathan Horne wrote: > ... > IMO, (and forgive me, i generally dont spew my opinions where they arent > welcome or asked for), RELENG_6_2 is better for a server over RELENG_6 > (aka, -STABLE), as it doesnt include items that are not critically > required for secure and stable operation. remember, that the true > -STABLE branch has items merged in from -CURRENT (call it back-ported?). > > let say, you already know that -p8 is the latest 6.2 revision. you get > on a server, you log in, and it says 6.2-RELEASE-p8. you already know > that this system is up to date. if you log in, and see 6.2-STABLE... > you dont immediately know when this system was last rebuilt without > doing some other version checks first. i have to be honest, when it > comes to managing a farm full of servers, i like my "visual version > checks"... the same way i like my women: We're going off-topic now, but you have a point. I'm not going to argue if STABLE is better than release branches on servers, but I think it would be useful to record the CVS date somewhere by default (I know you can do this manually via src/sys/conf/newvers.sh). Sometimes the "p8", "prerelease #4" or even kern.osreldate is too low resolution. uname -a just exposes the build date of the kernel, not the date of the sources. Maybe a sysctl like: sysctl kern.oscvsdate: 20071105224900 Erik