tarball dirname (was: Re: Why from there?)

Mike A. Harris (mharris@ican.net)
Thu, 14 May 1998 03:06:54 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 13 May 1998, Riley Williams wrote:

> > Lastly, your patch does not include the path information necessary
> > to determine which of the 12 kernel source files named 'time.c'
> > your patch applies against. The convention is to make your patches
> > sitting in /usr/src, so that 'linux' is the first component of the
> > path name. This just makes it easier for Linus (and all the rest of
> > us beta-testers of such stuff) to apply.
> Why on earth do you insist on just putting "linux" as the first
> component of the pathname when EVERYBODY else includes the version
> number? I can think of NO reason in favour of your choice, and plenty
> of reasons against it, including the following:
> Q> The current choice means that if I forget to move the "linux"
> Q> symlink from the old directory to a new directory specially
> Q> created for the new kernel, it overwrites my old kernel and thus
> Q> prevents me from reverting to it if the new kernel is faulty.
> PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE start including the kernel version in the base
> directory in the tarballs !!! I'd much sooner see a tarball create the
> directory "linux-2.1.102" than the directory "linux" !!!

I agree with what you're saying 100%, but your tone is a little
strong don't you think? I've had the same trouble in the past
too, and wondered why it wasn't tarred up as
"linux-versionnumber". I'm more concious of it now, and haven't
forgotten yet to rename the dir when installing, but I wish that
it would start out like that.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu