Messages in this thread | | | From | Alexander Kapshuk <> | Date | Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:42:22 +0300 | Subject | [PATCH] ver_linux: uniform output across various linux distros |
| |
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 07:50:37AM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: >> Hello, > > Hi! > > First off, your Subject: is a bit odd, you might want to fix up your > email client :) > >> >> Having run 'scripts/ver_linux' on my Gentoo system, as well as having >> looked through some recent bug reports on the kernel bugzilla website >> showing the output of the script in question, I have observed that >> the output is not accurate across various distros. While the current >> implementation of the script expects the version info to be found in >> particular fields, some of the utilities invoked by the script, output >> their version information in varying formats, which results in the >> script displaying information other than the version number. >> >> The proposed implementation relies mostly on sed to detect the version >> numbers more accurately. Running the patched version of the script on >> the distros below resulted in accurate and uniform output. >> >> Gentoo Linux >> Debian 6.0.10 >> Oracle Linux Server release 7.1 >> Arch Linux >> >> The items left unchanged are those I did not have access to. I would >> be willing to work on those too, if supplied the output of the affected >> commands whose format differs based on the distro. > > <snip> > > Your patch is a bit complex, you are changing the formatting, and at the > same time, also changing the code. Please do this in multiple patches, > one to fix any issues you see, and the second to then clean up the > formatting, making it easier to actually see what the difference is > here. > > Also, take a look at Documentation/SubmittingPatches for the proper > format of a kernel patch to ensure we are able to accept it (hint, your > patch is missing the signed-off-by line in the body of the changelog > area). > > thanks, > > greg k-h
Thanks very much for the tips you've given.
I'll go and read through 'Documentation/SubmittingPatches' again, as I seem not to have clearly understood the things you've pointed out. I'll get back to the list at a later time, hopefully, with a patch that meets the requirements.
| |