Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 00:33:47 -0700 From: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> To: Graham Perrin <grahamperrin@gmail.com>, Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: uname -KU 1500001 1500000 Message-ID: <B76144DE-0C4A-4757-AF2F-38D4E5CF6115@yahoo.com> References: <B76144DE-0C4A-4757-AF2F-38D4E5CF6115.ref@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Graham Perrin <grahamperrin_at_gmail.com> wrote on Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2023 03:57:59 UTC : > On 01/10/2023 23:41, Mark Millard wrote: > > That indicates that __FreeBSD_version was 1500000 when the uname that > > was run was built but the running kernel was built when > > __FreeBSD_version was 1500001 . (Presumes a lack of use of OSVERSION > > to override the getosreldate result for the kernel case.) > > > > What does "file /usr/bin/uname" report? Which does it list for: > > > > FreeBSD 15.0 (1500000) > > vs. > > FreeBSD 15.0 (1500001) > > > > ? > > > % file /usr/bin/uname > /usr/bin/uname: ELF 64-bit LSB pie executable, x86-64, version 1 > (FreeBSD), dynamically linked, interpreter /libexec/ld-elf.so.1, for > FreeBSD 15.0 (1500001), FreeBSD-style, stripped > % Interesting: /usr/bin/uname with "FreeBSD 15.0 (1500001)" produces 1500000 for "uname -U" ? Does seem odd. May be I should also have asked for the (modification?) time via an appropriate ls command? Or file and ls results for the amd64.amd64/usr.bin/uname/uname.o ? (Just checking for if there are surprises.) At the moment I do not have a good idea for the "FreeBSD 15.0 (1500001)" context giving "uname -U" 1500000 result combination. === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B76144DE-0C4A-4757-AF2F-38D4E5CF6115>