Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:16:26 +0300 | From | Adrian Bunk <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change |
| |
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 08:47:26AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:30:53AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Greg KH (greg@kroah.com) said: > > > Distros properly patch things and backport "urgent OpenSSL security > > > updates" to older versions of packages, so they would not run into this > > > problem. > > > > > > Newer releases would run into this problem, but as almost all distros > > > have huge, easy to run, build systems, a change like this would show up > > > immediately and be fixed in a matter of hours, with the needed fixes > > > being pushed upstream to the various packages as needed. > > > > > > So I really don't think this is much of a problem. > > > > > > It's interesting that openssl doesn't just check for Linux 1.x and > > > assumes that Linux 9.23.12 will work just fine with what they are doing :) > > > > Is it really worth the effort of having any such upstream have to > > quickly patch and release, when the only benefit listed (earlier in > > this thread) was to inform people how old their kernel is? > > If we switch to a consecutive numbering scheme, which doesn't show the > "age" of the kernel, we would still have to patch such packages, so I > don't see the big difference.
You miss the best alternative:
Simply keep the status quo.
> thanks, > > greg k-h
cu Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
| |