lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH, v2] kbuild: Improve version string logic
Date
On Thursday 15 October 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Distro kernels generally have their own naming schemes.
> > Debian uses: 2.6.30-2-amd64 (<version>-<ABI>-<flavor>)
> > Fedora uses: 2.6.30.5-43.fc11.i586
> >
> > And those kernel versions implicitly already contain the information
> > that they are not vanilla kernels. So a "+" suffix is totally
> > redundant.
>
> It's not "totally redundant" _AT ALL_.
>
> "2.6.30+-2-amd64" tells us that not only do we have the usual per distro

But it would not be "2.6.30+-2-amd64"; it would become "2.6.30-2-amd64+",
which IMO sucks.

> patches on top of vanilla .30 (which patches can be found in the deb or
> src.rpm), but we _ALSO_ have extra _vanilla kernel_ commits since
> v2.6.30.

This is where you are wrong. Yes, the patches are in the deb [1], but how
do they end up there? The distro patches themselves are also maintained in
an SCM, quite possibly as a branch from mainline, and the package
maintainers will build *from* that SCM. So *the distro patches themselves*
will trigger the "+".

You simply cannot distinguish between "extra vanilla kernel commits"
and "distro commits" in a tree. Both are changes since the tagged release;
both will trigger the "+", which makes the "+" meaningless.

Also, any distro cherry-picks upstream patches from later versions
as "distro patches" (at least, that's the case for over 90% of the patches
in Debian stable kernels). And we already know such patches are included
whenever we see a distro kernel version, so I still think having the "+"
does not add any meaningful information.

> Besides, distros building on kernels inbetween -rc's is very rare.

True. Which is why we shouldn't be adding the "+".

> If it happens it's sufficiently unusual to alert users to that fact via
> the '+' sign. The '+' sign will go away if a distro uses a precise
> upstream version.

But that's the whole point. It does not!
Even if they _only_ add their packaging infrastructure on top and have no
patches that affect the the kernel itself (which is unlikely), they would
still end up with the "+" because the commit(s) that add the packaging
infrastructure make the tree unequal to the tagged release.

Cheers,
FJP

[1] Actually they are in the .diff.gz, which contains all changes relative
to the original tarball, but I understand what you mean.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-15 16:49    [W:0.151 / U:8.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site