On Mon, 14 April 2003 16:31:08 +0200, Martin Schlemmer wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 15:46, Jörn Engel wrote:
>
> > Privately, I have introduced a variable FIXLEVEL for this. The
> > resulting kernel version is 2.4.20.2 instead of 2.4.20-uv2, which imo
> > is more suiting for a fixed stable kernel.
>
> This is not a good idea ... especially if its a box that you
> compile a lot of software on. Reason is that everything expects
> it to be MAJ.MIN.MIC ... If you add now another version, then
> things start to break. A good example is mozilla ...
That doesn't convince me (yet?). Why doesn't 2.4.20-pre5-ac3 break
mozilla, but 2.4.20.1 does? If mozilla depends on this information, it
should at least have a robust parser for it.
Can you give me a little more details on this? Did anyone ever declare
that userspace can expect kernel versions to fit this regex?
\d+\.\d+\.\d+(-.+)?
Jörn
-- More computing sins are committed in the name of efficiency (without necessarily achieving it) than for any other single reason - including blind stupidity. -- W. A. Wulf - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 22:00:30 EST