Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:44:07 +0300 From: Adrian Penisoara <ady@enterprisebsd.com> To: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: getting the running patch level Message-ID: <CAKWGksUtHzCvbTTwGgndPv0mSMzOhDZPB-x=kSYY4j4DvzPO=w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120821155622.A9FB5106566C@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20120821120031.9B0771065674@hub.freebsd.org> <20120821155622.A9FB5106566C@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> wrote:
> Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
[...]
>
> WRT writing a new file, something like /etc/bsd-release would be a good
> choice following the principle of least surprise. Mergemaster can and
> should ignore it (and motd, issue, ...).
>
I support the idea of using an /etc/*-release file to tag (and this
makes me think about /var/db/freebsd-update/tag) the current release
version details of the system (not only the kernel, but the whole
installed system). This seems to be a popular choice among Linux
distributions and thus ISV's should feel comfortable with the
approach.
Mergemaster and/or other updating mechanisms should update the file
to reflect the reality after upgrades/updates.
Now the format of the file would be also debatable: other vendors
releasing derivative works from the main FreeBSD source tree (like
FreeNAS, PC-BSD, etc.) will want to leave some marks as well. Should
we retain only the vendor's release tag or should we have a multiple
entries (for the original FreeBSD version and the vendor) ? Should we
even think about multiple ${vendor}-release files or just bsd-release
?
Thanks for your time,
Adrian Penisoara
EntepriseBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAKWGksUtHzCvbTTwGgndPv0mSMzOhDZPB-x=kSYY4j4DvzPO=w>