linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, v2] kbuild: Improve version string logic

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Frans Pop <elendil@...net.nl>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dirk Hohndel <hohndel@...radead.org>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, v2] kbuild: Improve version string logic

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Frans Pop wrote:

> You simply cannot distinguish between "extra vanilla kernel commits" 
> and "distro commits" in a tree. Both are changes since the tagged release; 
> both will trigger the "+", which makes the "+" meaningless.
> 

I can guarantee that distro is not going to be releasing a "v2.6.33" 
kernel with patches on top of it without modifying the version string in 
some way.  With my patch, the `+' is suppressed when LOCALVERSION= is 
used.

I chose not to allow CONFIG_LOCALVERSION to suppress the `+' because the 
config normally does not change with a revision, a build does.  So while 
CONFIG_LOCALVERSION may describe the packager of the kernel, LOCALVERSION= 
would describe a particular release.

> > Besides, distros building on kernels inbetween -rc's is very rare.
> 
> True. Which is why we shouldn't be adding the "+".
> 

The `+' is irrelevant at -rc releases, it wouldn't be added anyway!  It's 
purpose is to identify non-vanilla release kernels.

> But that's the whole point. It does not!
> Even if they _only_ add their packaging infrastructure on top and have no 
> patches that affect the the kernel itself (which is unlikely), they would 
> still end up with the "+" because the commit(s) that add the packaging 
> infrastructure make the tree unequal to the tagged release.
> 

Why would you add packaging infrastructure to the kernel source itself?  
Normally you would have a Makefile for rpm packaging that would call into 
the kernel Makefile, leaving it vanilla.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/