Rebuilding kernel/system to a state "back-in-time"?
erik at cederstrand.dk
Mon Nov 5 20:38:30 PST 2007
Jonathan Horne wrote:
> IMO, (and forgive me, i generally dont spew my opinions where they arent
> welcome or asked for), RELENG_6_2 is better for a server over RELENG_6
> (aka, -STABLE), as it doesnt include items that are not critically
> required for secure and stable operation. remember, that the true
> -STABLE branch has items merged in from -CURRENT (call it back-ported?).
> let say, you already know that -p8 is the latest 6.2 revision. you get
> on a server, you log in, and it says 6.2-RELEASE-p8. you already know
> that this system is up to date. if you log in, and see 6.2-STABLE...
> you dont immediately know when this system was last rebuilt without
> doing some other version checks first. i have to be honest, when it
> comes to managing a farm full of servers, i like my "visual version
> checks"... the same way i like my women:
We're going off-topic now, but you have a point. I'm not going to argue
if STABLE is better than release branches on servers, but I think it
would be useful to record the CVS date somewhere by default (I know you
can do this manually via src/sys/conf/newvers.sh). Sometimes the "p8",
"prerelease #4" or even kern.osreldate is too low resolution. uname -a
just exposes the build date of the kernel, not the date of the sources.
Maybe a sysctl like:
sysctl kern.oscvsdate: 20071105224900
More information about the freebsd-questions