From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Fri Feb 26 16:35:47 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC5F956649D for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 16:35:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: from mail-io1-f43.google.com (mail-io1-f43.google.com [209.85.166.43]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DnFdb0t8Wz4Wfm for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 16:35:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: by mail-io1-f43.google.com with SMTP id n14so10239758iog.3 for ; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 08:35:46 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=B9WpI9ZvCDZRH/R3zT661xCL9LzsVunl/NJq5lc2dog=; b=atwZtjVEzQijWXjoBZbnfKEo/r6oEbbrpQqQrMfByQO7HLyi55CJYaVrDmwFQ98vO0 EpenjOTHQ0NBZ03mbJo7MiJrGCZXaQGJ+mOEiJX/Kqs08grnCIU7+8UdVl0aJiaCC0D2 I/M3byCvT2aVGbZwlb5jt6IzuGgDTHPCk0T2rWJEqvdGIOCMQtp4v1AcDmNEhuz7J2Yy PQ3hPetie1FPuh60L5bNZ5p19s2C1ypkqndFoAF1Ve2XS8xuIAmMue+tDiMNPREqbxDs xaYJD4e0Nm2lc81CoqwyubCOM6rihHqFgWr/Kk+NAgvHQovRQDk4goP95OzM0m2Atyvx ZiDw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531wHBYq9kpdoZn1tHnE9Wq5QmHOgI1muwTOuM+mR4mTocP7VhPO BCiQcRhwUW14FQ9HCE7VtXmt1JTVrW4rFGtzuQk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz9oYwJJYN+XctLOcMzK3OKyCTCYozxV+DFusmOBQfsmhwUdh3xsfyjdd94utlUZcRS/VO4BCa9+uP9gw8T9do= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:fc16:: with SMTP id r22mr3297375ioh.102.1614357346011; Fri, 26 Feb 2021 08:35:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1748076.jFELhIj8lM@ravel> <3308997.ajJYar8FF2@ravel> <001a5401-c334-5937-4ce3-315ff89e34be@denninger.net> In-Reply-To: From: Ed Maste Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 11:35:24 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: How do I know if my 13-stable has security patches? To: Warner Losh Cc: FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4DnFdb0t8Wz4Wfm X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of carpeddiem@gmail.com designates 209.85.166.43 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=carpeddiem@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.99 / 15.00]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17:c]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; RBL_DBL_DONT_QUERY_IPS(0.00)[209.85.166.43:from]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.993]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[carpeddiem]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-stable@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; SPAMHAUS_ZRD(0.00)[209.85.166.43:from:127.0.2.255]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[209.85.166.43:from]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.85.166.43:from]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-stable] X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2021 16:35:47 -0000 On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 at 15:58, Warner Losh wrote: > > The problem, though, can happen when you run a shallow clone or gitup to > get the sources and build from that. In that case the v number is bogus > (hmmm, we should omit it when we have a shallow clone maybe). I want to clarify one point here - the commit count is already omitted from uname in the case of shallow clones (as Kevin Oberman discovered). Shallow clones certainly have the benefit of limiting the amount of disk space used by the clone. Does that outweigh the loss of the commit count? I had a look at the size of the .git directory with different --depth settings: 262M stable-13-shallow-1/.git 262M stable-13-shallow-10/.git 262M stable-13-shallow-100/.git 281M stable-13-shallow-1000/.git 807M stable-13-shallow-10000/.git I think we can provide a way to include the commit count as long as we're willing to require some minimum clone depth, and will pursue this in the next while. If this works out it will make it into stable/13, but probably not releng/13.0.