lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Improved version reporting
Date
Andries.Brouwer writes:
>> From: "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu>
>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:

>>>>> +o Console Tools # 0.3.3 # loadkeys -V
>>>>> +o Mount # 2.10e # mount --version
>>>>
>>>> Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too old,
>>
>> Exactly why? Mere missing features don't make for a required
>> upgrade. Version number inflation should be resisted.
...
> These days you can mount several filesystems at the same mount point.
> The old mount does not understand this at all.
> Recent versions of mount act better in this respect,
> even though it is still easy to confuse them.

The rule should be like this:

List the lowest version number required to get
2.2.xx-level features while running a 2.4.xx kernel.

Remember what the purpose of the table is. It is a list of REQUIRED
upgrades. Failure to upgrade should result in a broken system. So pppd
must be listed, since somebody changed the kernel API for 2.4.1.

If I run the mount command from Red Hat 6.2, using it as intended
for a 2.2.xx kernel, doesn't everything work? There won't be any
multi-mount confusion because 2.2.xx can't do that anyway. There
isn't any problem with NFSv3 either, since 2.2.xx lacks NFSv3.

Basically I ask: would existing scripts for a 2.2.xx kernel break?
If the old mount can still do what it used to do, then "mount" need
not be listed at all.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22    [W:0.073 / U:4.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site