On Mon, 2003-04-14 at 16:47, Jörn Engel wrote:
> 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+(-.+)?
>
From include/linux/version.h:
---------------------------------------------------------------
#define UTS_RELEASE "2.5.67-bk2"
#define LINUX_VERSION_CODE 132419
#define KERNEL_VERSION(a,b,c) (((a) << 16) + ((b) << 8) + (c))
---------------------------------------------------------------
Your changes will definitely break things that do:
#if ((LINUX_VERSION_CODE > KERNEL_VERSION(2.4.0)) && \
(LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2.5.0)))
Also, most docs explaining the version format, refer to
major.minor.micro
Anyhow, I did not say it was set in stone, I just said if you
start getting breakage when compiling/configuring things, do
not wonder why =)
Regards,
--Martin Schlemmer
- 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 - 22:00:33 EST