From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 30 19:58:59 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 009A65BE for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:58:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [IPv6:2001:470:1f11:75::1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CCA40B1E for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:58:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8B4DB939; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:58:57 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Small motd nit in 10.1 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:54:03 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.4-CBSD-20140415; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <8C81A636-D2B5-4EFB-9EA3-58E88E16CA94@spam.lifeforms.nl> <93E9657A-737E-4705-A0E5-01F9E9110261@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> In-Reply-To: <93E9657A-737E-4705-A0E5-01F9E9110261@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201410301554.03504.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:58:57 -0400 (EDT) Cc: Warren Block , 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 19:58:59 -0000 On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 8:47:42 pm Paul Mather wrote: > On Oct 29, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Warren Block wrote: > > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Walter Hop wrote: > > > >> I noticed that the motd has been updated, which is great. > >> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/releng/10.1/etc/motd?revision=272461&view=markup > >> > >> However, the following line could be improved: > >> Show the version of FreeBSD installed: uname -a > >> > >> I would recommend changing the line to: > >> Show the version of FreeBSD installed: freebsd-version > >> > >> Users often confuse the kernel version (uname -a) with the actual FreeBSD version from the freebsd-version(1) command. Because of this, people needlessly worry whether their system was updated correctly after freebsd- update has run, because they erroneously check this with ?uname -a?. A small motd change will hopefully prevent that. > > > > Sorry, I don't understand the source of confusion. > > 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. -- John Baldwin