Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sat, 8 Feb 1997 14:48:59 -0500 (EST) | From | Peter Grace <> | Subject | Re: 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 matter.
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 > wcooley@navi.net > http://www.navi.net/~wcooley > > 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. >
|  |