[nycbug-talk] two FreeBSD questions

[George Rosamond]

Glen Barber:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 09:22:32PM -0400, George Rosamond wrote:
>> Glen Barber:
>>> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 08:29:00PM -0400, George Rosamond
>>> wrote:
>>>> 1.  I don't see the svn revision number in my uname with -a
>>>> on 9.2 or -CURRENT.  Apparently others do.  Anyone else?
>>>> Why?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> What does 'svn info /usr/src' say?
>> 
>> nothing!  I'm using the nyc*bug-pleasing tool called net/svnup
>> ;)
>> 
> 
> Ah.  That's why then.
> 
> svnup does not record the revision in the way that can be reported
> by uname(1).
> 
> Specifically, sys/conf/newvers.sh calls svn{,lite}version, which
> walks the tree to generate the output for uname(1).

I should have caught that myself... and realized after I sent.  I had
issues with newvers.sh and it getting confused by dot git files... PR
174422, so I had worked through that file a few times.

Got it.

> 
>> hirren on IRC said he sees the svn revision number in his uname
>> -a, but says he didn't see it when things like world and kernel
>> are out of sync, which is likely the case with the 9.2 box.
>> 
> 
> No, when kernel/userland are out of sync, you will still see the
> svn revision.  It will not be accurate, though.
> 
> (freebsd-version(1) in head/ is able to differentiate when userland
> and kernel are out of sync to provide actual useful output; also
> uname(1) was updated today with r256557 to add '-K' and '-U'
> options for kernel and userland, respectively.)

that's a nice thing.

> 
>> Not having svn installed... that might matter?  Neither has svn
>> installed.
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 2.  Now that FreeBSD CURRENT hit 11, do any FBSD devs know if
>>>> the bleeding edge arm stuff is only hitting 11, or will 10
>>>> get the same attention with arm?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> "It depends."  stable/10 will definitely have attention in
>>> these areas, but changes that affect KBI (kernel binary
>>> interface) cannot be merged from head/ to stable/10.
>> 
>> right.  So the project will maintain 8.x, 9.x, 10.x and focus on
>> 11.x?
>> 
> 
> Well, 10.0 is the immediate focus; 11.0 will not exist as a release
> for about 2 years or so.  stable/9 will continue to receive
> updates.  The number of updates merged to stable/8 will surely
> lessen, but do not expect any more 8.x releases.

Got it.

So with the flurry of arm commits I see, building something stable
(lower case) with 10- is still the best bet, right?

> 
>> Here we go again!
>> 
>> ;)
>> 
>> Why the rush to 11 for HEAD?
>> 
> 
> It is an illusion.
> 
> http://www.nycbug.org/pipermail/talk/2013-September/030328.html

Point (dot) taken (pun...)

I should read entire replies, not just the first three lines :)

Thank you for your infinite patience gjb.

g