Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Oct 2004 08:55:09 -0400 | From | "John W. Linville" <> | Subject | Re: [patch 2.6.9 0/11] Add MODULE_VERSION to several network drivers |
| |
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 03:46:11PM +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 14:22, John W. Linville wrote:
> > I would have to suspect that if a version string exists, that it has at > > least some meaning to the primary developers/maintainters. It certainly
> Since the skeleton driver includes a define for that, I suspect your > assumption is a bit overly optimistic.
Perhaps...still, at least the drivers I touched w/ these patches seem to have version numbers that are at least somewhat meaningful.
> > Is this a political statement against the MODULE_VERSION macro and/or > > its purpose? I'm not overly interested in debating that one... > > Not really. I have absolutely no problem with a MODULE_VERSION macro > *IF* the version it advertises means something. However if the version > it advertises has no meaning whatsoever (eg the version number never > gets updated) then imo it's better to NOT advertise anything so that > other tools (like dkms) don't make assumptions and decisions based on > nothing-meaning data.
Again, I think it would have to be the maintainer's responsibility to make the version numbers meaningful.
John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com - 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/
| |