On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Jörn Engel wrote:
> So basically, neither the existing EXTRAVERSION nor my new FIXLEVEL
> are checked. Any code could potentially break with -ac1 to -ac2 or
> with .1 to .2.
>
> Did anyone experience such problems with -ac already? There are far
> more changes in -ac than there are in your patch.
Which brings the point as to why use a new variable unless you are going to
actually modify LINUX_VERSION_CODE with it. It actually makes more sense to
just use EXTRAVERSION for this then.
Now, using EXTRAVERSION = .2 wouldn't be unrealistic...
Regards
James Bourne
>
> Driver compilation should not be an issue. Change the Makefile and
> version.h should be changed as well, so any code depending on
> version.h will be rebuild, whether necessary or not.
>
> Module load sounds unrealistic for .[123...], as you shouldn't change
> any interfaces with fixes. But it might be a real problem for -ac.
>
> Jörn
>
> PS: Or for -aa, -dj, -mm or whatever. It's just an example.
>
>
-- James Bourne | Email: jbourne@hardrock.org Unix Systems Administrator | WWW: http://www.hardrock.org Custom Unix Programming | Linux: The choice of a GNU generation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "All you need's an occasional kick in the philosophy." Frank Herbert- 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