David Demelier writes:
>
> 2012/12/15 Lowell Gilbert
>
>> "Anders N." writes:
>>
>> > Hi. I've noticed in my "uname -a" on 9.1-RELEASE there is "r243826."
>> > This is on a system that upgraded from 9.1-RC3 using freebsd-update
>> > (binary). On another system, upgraded from 9.0-RELEASE via
>>
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:13 PM, David Demelier
wrote:
> I hope it will be removed soon, it pollutes the uname -a output.
I don't hope so. It helps us keep track of the exact revision
numbers of deployed servers here. Please don't remove it,
or at least, provide an additional switch to uname to
r
I hope it will be removed soon, it pollutes the uname -a output.
2012/12/15 Lowell Gilbert
> "Anders N." writes:
>
> > Hi. I've noticed in my "uname -a" on 9.1-RELEASE there is "r243826."
> > This is on a system that upgraded from 9.1-RC3 using freebsd-update
> > (binary). On another system, u
"Anders N." writes:
> Hi. I've noticed in my "uname -a" on 9.1-RELEASE there is "r243826."
> This is on a system that upgraded from 9.1-RC3 using freebsd-update
> (binary). On another system, upgraded from 9.0-RELEASE via
> freebsd-update (source), there is nothing at all and uname -a looks
> nor
On 12/15/12 13:44, Anders N. wrote:
Hi. I've noticed in my "uname -a" on 9.1-RELEASE there is "r243826." This is on
a system that upgraded from 9.1-RC3 using freebsd-update (binary). On another system, upgraded from
9.0-RELEASE via freebsd-update (source), there is nothing at all and uname -a l
Hi. I've noticed in my "uname -a" on 9.1-RELEASE there is "r243826." This is on
a system that upgraded from 9.1-RC3 using freebsd-update (binary). On another
system, upgraded from 9.0-RELEASE via freebsd-update (source), there is nothing
at all and uname -a looks normal. Two other people I asked
