lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.6.32-rc3

    * Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

    > On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 06:40:28PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > >
    > > Could we, for consistency's sake, make it:
    > >
    > > 2.6.32-rc3+00052-g0eca52a-dirty
    > > 2.6.32-rc3+
    > >
    > > ? Or do we want to keep the old version string alone for some reason?
    >
    > I'm a bit concerned that changing from what we've currently had:
    >
    > > 2.6.29-00052-g0eca52a-dirty
    >
    > might break some packaging scripts. [...]

    ( Sidenote: such scripts might as well need fixing then, even without
    any upstream changes - adding a localversion file to the top level
    directory (which many out of tree projects do) would possibly break
    them as well. )

    > [...] I'm also personally used to that naming scheme; in fact at the
    > moment I'm using 2.6.32-rc1-00292-gb0390e2. :-)

    Yeah, i'm pretty happy with auto-localversion as well and use it
    everywhere. What i suggested is a small tweak to that: to make it more
    clear what people get during the merge window - when the string says
    "2.6.31-00292-gb0390e2". Plus a small tweak to the non-auto-localversion
    naming: to make the uname output more clear when people disable the
    auto-localversion option:

    Linux europe 2.6.31+ #2 SMP Tue Oct 6 19:26:58 CEST 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux

    versus the inaccurate:

    Linux europe 2.6.31 #2 SMP Tue Oct 6 19:26:58 CEST 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux

    string which we emit today.

    Ingo


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-10-06 20:37    [W:4.363 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site