freebsd-update 8.1 to 8.1-p1

[c0re]

Is not "p1" compiled in kernel during make buildkernel operation?
If yes, /boot/kernel of 8.1 and /boot/kernel 8.1-p1 must be different.
So binary diff of /boot/kernel also must be installed during
freebsd-update. It's my opinion. Why not?

I think it's not reasonable to have updated system without actually be
possible to know that it's really updated. And I think that if you are
looking for real patch level of your OS, you will look at uname -a,
not in newvers.sh file.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

2010/9/27 Jason <jhelfman at e-e.com>:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 09:01:38PM +0700, Phan Quoc Hien thus spake:
>>
>> Try rebuild your kernel and get 8.1-RELEASE-p1! I did it!
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:29 PM, c0re <nr1c0re at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello freebsd-questions!
>>>
>>> I've installed freebsd 8.1 and made
>>> freebsd-update fetch
>>> freebsd-update install
>>> reboot
>>>
>>> And in uname -a I still see 8.1-RELEASE, but I want to see
>>> 8.1-RELEASE-p1.
>>>
>>> In /usr/src/sys/conf/newvers.sh I see that it is 8.1-p1
>>>
>>> REVISION="8.1"
>>> BRANCH="RELEASE-p1"
>>>
>>> Why is it so? I want to know that my system is up to date with
>>> freebsd-update, but uname -a does not show this to me.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> freebsd-questions at freebsd.org mailing list
>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
>>> freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>>
>
> The kernel wasn't touched during the latest set of security releases, so an
> update to 8.1-p1 will show your kernel at 8.1. If you perform another
> freebsd-update, it should show no updates for 8.1-p1.
>
> Based on what you are saying, uname is reporting correctly.
>
> Other than 'sys/conf/newvers.sh,' if the update touches sys, it should
> redistribute the kernel and the patch number in the announcement. After it
> is properly applied, 'uname' should match.
>
> I don't recall the reasoning behind newvers.sh in the update software, but
> others may have an idea.
>
> -jgh
>