Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 17:35:52 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: chad@dcfinc.com Cc: dg@root.com, rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com, jkh@time.cdrom.com, andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CVSUP vs. SNAPS Message-ID: <199710022335.RAA06331@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 02 Oct 1997 16:31:50 PDT." <199710022331.QAA29397@freebie.dcfinc.com> References: <199710022331.QAA29397@freebie.dcfinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199710022331.QAA29397@freebie.dcfinc.com> "Chad R. Larson" writes: : In other words, say I get my new, hot 2.2.5-RELEASE CD-ROMs from Walnut : Creek via my subscription. I build a brand new box and load it from the : CD. Then I CVSup against 2.2-STABLE to pick up any last minute bug : fixes. What should the release identifier be now? Whatever it is, it : should be different than before the CVSup. And it should be something : that can be easily determined from within a script, for autoconfigures : and the like. Unless I'm missing something, that's what I'm proposing. uname -r should return 2.2.5-STABLE in this scenario. This is a good compromise between being too precise (heisenberg would have something to say about the CVS tree, if Terry doesn't beat him to it) and too vauge (the current status quo). Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710022335.RAA06331>