Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:57:40 +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: Message-ID: <20210719145740.42fc19c4d12a84a8b9e33a82@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <CAD=pOfm6NHA9bFmRC2oFeFLybKXbGAZNyesc_WkU1gabA-h2dQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAD=pOfm6NHA9bFmRC2oFeFLybKXbGAZNyesc_WkU1gabA-h2dQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 09:18:33 -0400 Nathaniel Nigro <nathaniel.nigro@gmail.com> wrote: > I understand now, because I wasn’t doing the kernel updates (recompileing > it afterwards) after the binary updates it was saying the user land was > at patch 7 but could be at 9 Unless I did the kernel updates?-- Not quite - there are two distinct versions the kernel version and the userland version. Every binary patch will update the userland version but only binary patches that change the kernel will update the kernel version. Building from source and installing always updates both versions. Either way you wind up with the same kernel and userland, but in the source upgrade the kernel picks up the version bump whether or not it is otherwise changed. IOW kernel versions p7, p8 and p9 are identical apart from the version number so a binary upgrade doesn't bother changing it. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20210719145740.42fc19c4d12a84a8b9e33a82>