Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:30:39 +0300 | From | Ville Herva <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.2: /proc/config.gz |
| |
On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 02:52:56PM +0200, you [almesber@lrc.di.epfl.ch] claimed: > > Does <version> also include the build number (i.e. the first part of > UTS_VERSION) ? Is it resilient to patches where, by accident, > EXTRAVERSION or such hasn't been incremented ? Will people always
Speaking of patches, it would be nice to have a standard way for patches (I'm not speaking of pre-pacthes and such, but feature-adding not-included-in-main-tree patches) to add their name and version info somewhere in the source tree.
For example, if I have 2.2.16pre5 kernel and the following patches:
reiserfs, hedrick-ide, proconfig, lm-sensors, pc-speaker, e2compr, softraid-0.9x
after applying the patches, I would have the something like this in the source tree:
cat /usr/src/linux/.patches 16pre5 reiserfs-1.3.20 hedrick-ide-31052000 proconfig-0.81 lm-sensors-2.5.0 pc-speaker-0.9 e2compr-0.4.31 softraid-0.9x-6a
so that I can tell what a given source tree contains after 2 months. Proconfig or /proc/config.gz -patch might even include this information, so I could get this info through /proc/version or /proc/extra-version or something. Of course, .patches could contain more than that, for example URL and maintainer.
Just a thought.
-- v --
v@iki.fi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |