Messages in this thread | | | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Improved version reporting | Date | Mon, 19 Mar 2001 01:50:01 -0500 (EST) |
| |
Riley Williams writes:
>> 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. > > That's a meaningless definition, and can only be taken as such. What > use would such a list be to somebody wishing (like I recently was) to > upgrade a system running the 2.0.12 kernel so it runs the 2.4.2 > kernel instead? ... >> 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. > > Replace that "a 2.2.xx" with "my current" and remove all restrictions > on what the current kernel is, and that becomes an important question.
No, not "my current" but "the previous stable". I say "2.2.xx" because that is the previous stable kernel.
If you upgrade from 2.0.xx, you should read the 2.2.xx changes file.
The important thing is to avoid version number inflation. I don't even bother reading the changes file, because I know it is bogus. Nearly all of my old software works great with a 2.4.xx kernel. - 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/
| |