FreeBSD-update?

[Mike.]

On 4/25/2013 at 4:47 AM Polytropon wrote:

|On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:32:17 -0400, Mike. wrote:
|> If uname -r [-a] does not give the proper version of the OS, then it
is
|> either a bug, or the documentation for uname should be changed.
|> Currently, the man page for uname gives the following option:
|> 
|> -r      Write the current release level of the operating system to
|> stan-
|> 	     dard output.
|
|Also the manpage of uname(3) would require a change to make clear
|that the version of the _kernel_ is provided, which _may_ stay the
|same during patchlevels of a given version. From that point of
|view, if we consider the patchlevel _not_ being part of the OS
|_version_, the statement (as it currently reads) makes sense.
|The understanding is: Version 9.1 is the OS version, and if
|a patch has been added, it's still 9.1 (even though the more
|precise information is 9.1-p5 for example). Similarly consider
|followint -STABLE: in this case, 9-STABLE or 9.1-STABLE is being
|reported, because no "precise" version numbers exist on that
|branch (at least not in the terms of patchlevels, instead a
|repository revision number or the date of the checkout could
|be considered for precision).
|
|The uname program relies on the uname system call to get the
|system identification, which queries the information stored in a
|(struct utsname *) data structure:
|
|     The uname() function stores NUL-terminated strings of information
|identi-
|     fying the current system into the structure referenced by name.
|
|
|     The utsname structure is defined in the <sys/utsname.h> header
file,
|and
|     contains the following members:
|
|           release       Release level of the operating system.
|
|           version       Version level of the operating system.
|
|This part of documentation would, given the case, also require
|adjustment, refering to the kernel instead of the OS.
 =============


On the other hand, maybe instead of changing the documentation of uname
to accommodate a problem with freebsd update, maybe freebsd update
should be changed to accommodate the historical and expected
performance of uname.

In other words, once I found out this problem with freebsd update
(i.e., not properly refreshing the OS version), I stopped using it, as
I was not able to ascertain the current state of my OS installation
anymore.