Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:04:33 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> To: Nathaniel Nigro <nathaniel.nigro@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Binary vs source Message-ID: <20210719140433.9f8394f0b55e03554c52fe28@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <CAD=pOfnw%2BkOt15KxVBH7JahDe8xjMoxg0ZiFubuqK=YiL9KbSA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAD=pOfnw%2BkOt15KxVBH7JahDe8xjMoxg0ZiFubuqK=YiL9KbSA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 08:49:21 -0400 Nathaniel Nigro <nathaniel.nigro@gmail.com> wrote: > I noticed updating through binaries, on 12x as of now that it takes me to > patch 7 vs through source it where it’s patching me up to p9. My question The kernel is at patch 7, but userland is at patch 9 - which simply means that the latest two patches did not affect the kernel. To see both kernel and userland versions currently installed use: freebsd-version -ku > is, when I update through source am I technically getting the newer > patches ? or patched 2 months longer through source vs binaries? Also. I No it's just that binary upgrades that don't include the kernel don't bump the kernel version but if you rebuild the kernel after a source upgrade it will even though nothing else has changed in the kernel. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20210719140433.9f8394f0b55e03554c52fe28>