Heartbleed / r264266 / openssl version

Tue Apr 8 22:59:09 UTC 2014

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 15:47:29 -0700, Xin Li wrote:
> What would be the preferable way of representing the patchlevel?  We
> can do it as part of a EN batch at later time.  (Note though, even
> without this the user or an application can still use
> freebsd-version(1) on FreeBSD 10.0-RELEASE and up to find out the
> patchlevel for userland).

On an updated system:

[(18:56:41) apeiron at behemoth ~] freebsd-version
10.0-STABLE
[(18:56:42) apeiron at behemoth ~] freebsd-version -k
10.0-STABLE
[(18:56:43) apeiron at behemoth ~] freebsd-version -u
10.0-STABLE
[(18:56:47) apeiron at behemoth ~]

I can't say this is very useful.  Is this only supposed to work
for -RELEASE?

-- 
Chris Nehren
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 923 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/attachments/20140408/d1fa0b47/attachment.sig>