[lkml]   [1997]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Version bug in 2.0.29?

Well, need fear not, for I talked to a man named Trevor about it, and he
says that make oldconfig INDEED has a bug, the "make oldconfig" doesn't
correctly update the version.h file, but he says "make menuconfig" does do
this correctly. So I beg of forgiveness for bothering you with this

On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, W. Reilly Cooley wrote:

> # I installed 2.0.29 last night.. apon returning to the machine this morning
> # and rebooting, I found it to still be 2.0.28. I remember doing everything
> # right, unzipping it, checking all symlinks, everything. I decided to
> # check the version.h in /usr/src/linux/include/linux, and it still said it
> # was 2.0.28.... This startled me incredibly, and I was wondering if its a
> # bug in the kernel, or was it just something I've done?
> I'm not much of an authority, but I don't think you should send this
> sort of thing to Linus.
> I don't know if this really counts as a 'bug'. Make the appropriate
> change, diff it, and post the patch. (Or, if you think you may be
> mistaken, d/l the patch to 2.0.29 and check it.)
> Wil
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> W. Reilly Cooley
> The Naked Ape Consulting
> 1509 NE 10th Ave., #104 Portland, OR 97232
> 503 287-2165
> As a service, I provide analysis for viruses and poor grammar to senders
> of unsolicited commercial e-mail at a rate of US$250 per hour. Delivery of
> said correspondence constitutes a request for the afforementioned services
> at said price.

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.039 / U:0.816 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site