From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Oct 27 03:14:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id DAA09094 for stable-outgoing; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:14:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-stable) Received: from vader.cs.berkeley.edu (vader.CS.Berkeley.EDU [128.32.38.234]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id DAA09088 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:14:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from asami@bubble.didi.com) Received: from bubble.didi.com (sjx-ca35-03.ix.netcom.com [204.31.236.131]) by vader.cs.berkeley.edu (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA16261; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:14:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from asami@localhost) by bubble.didi.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) id DAA02011; Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:13:58 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 03:13:58 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <199710271113.DAA02011@bubble.didi.com> To: perhaps@yes.no CC: jkh@time.cdrom.com, imp@village.org, jdp@polstra.com, mark@quickweb.com, stable@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: <199710251652.SAA10816@bitbox.follo.net> (message from Eivind Eklund on Sat, 25 Oct 1997 18:52:55 +0200 (MET DST)) Subject: Re: CVSUP vs. SNAPS From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi Asami) Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk * (2) Make uname info of what is now 2.2-STABLE usable to determine if * features of a certain release is available. This is not nearly enough for moving targets like -stable or -current. What we need is something much more fine-grained if we want uname to return useful information. One thing we can do is to include __FreeBSD_version somewhere in there. (It is already available as "sysctl kern.osreldate", and has been used by many ports for this purpose.) However, looking at -current this value doesn't appear to have been bumped nearly often enough. I've been changing it in 2.2-stable as often as I notice something going in, but it's quite possible I have missed some stuff. Unless the 2.2 -> 2.2.5 change is accompanied by something else (like the one Nate mentioned) that makes the string actually useful, I am against it as it only moved the problem and adds a false sense of accuracy. Satoshi