Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:57:12 +0100 From: Erik Cederstrand <erik@cederstrand.dk> To: Jonathan Horne <jhorne@ncs.dfwlp.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Rebuilding kernel/system to a state "back-in-time"? Message-ID: <472F91B8.1000506@cederstrand.dk> In-Reply-To: <20071105094415.7ubd7cvhicwwocos@webmail.dfwlp.org> References: <20071105144320.GA3811@aurora.oekb.co.at> <472F32CE.6050306@cederstrand.dk> <20071105094415.7ubd7cvhicwwocos@webmail.dfwlp.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?472F91B8.1000506>