Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:45:06 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change |
| |
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:56:04AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 09:47:51AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >... > > > Packages are built in a chroot with the correct release installed. > > > > Then why would this break if they are being built against the correct, > > older, kernel? > > How could you build userspace "against a kernel"? > > sys_*uname() returns the version of the running kernel.
Great, then why does the build system depend on the running kernel? Doesn't that sound like a bug?
> > > > and that build would be > > > > determining things based on the system it is built on, not what it is > > > > being built for? > > > > > > No. > > > > > > In the example I gave it is OpenSSL that parses the version number of > > > the kernel. > > > > The running kernel, with the expectation that this is the kernel it is > > going to be running on after it is built, right? Sounds like to ensure > > this is correct, you better be building it on the kernel that you are > > going to run it on, or its build process is broken. > > I'm not even sure whether OpenSSL actually does anything with the > information: The script comes from the Apache foundation and > claims to be "Similar to config.guess but much, much smaller." > > BTW: Apache 1.3 seems to ship and use the same script.
Again, depending on the kernel the product is being built on, to determine a build-time configuration, seems quite broken if you want to do cross-compilation.
Or you just do native builds, on the kernel you expect to run the product, and everyone is happy and there are no errors.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |