Re: [PATCH] 2.2: /proc/config.gz

From: Ville Herva (
Date: Fri Sep 01 2000 - 02:30:39 EST

On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 02:52:56PM +0200, you [] claimed:
> Does <version> also include the build number (i.e. the first part of
> UTS_VERSION) ? Is it resilient to patches where, by accident,
> EXTRAVERSION or such hasn't been incremented ? Will people always

Speaking of patches, it would be nice to have a standard way for patches
(I'm not speaking of pre-pacthes and such, but feature-adding
not-included-in-main-tree patches) to add their name and version info
somewhere in the source tree.

For example, if I have 2.2.16pre5 kernel and the following patches:

reiserfs, hedrick-ide, proconfig, lm-sensors, pc-speaker, e2compr,

after applying the patches, I would have the something like this in the
source tree:

cat /usr/src/linux/.patches

so that I can tell what a given source tree contains after 2 months.
Proconfig or /proc/config.gz -patch might even include this information,
so I could get this info through /proc/version or /proc/extra-version or
something. Of course, .patches could contain more than that, for
example URL and maintainer.

Just a thought.

-- v --
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:10 EST