[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200810172106.29154.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:06:28 +0200
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
Cc: Steven Noonan <steven@...inklabs.net>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
On Friday 17 October 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 01:16:38AM -0700, Steven Noonan wrote:
> > I believe some of Adrian's concerns are valid. Userspace programs will
> > indeed break, largely because some depend on build-time and run-time
> > checks for the kernel version being >=2.6.0 or >=2.4.0 and so forth. I
> > suspect the best way to prove userspace breakage would be to make a
> > branch of the kernel with a new versioning scheme (8.10, 2008.10,
> > whatever) and use that as the installed kernel while building a Gentoo
> > system. I suspect you'd see massive breakage.
>
> That would be trivial for me to test, IFF we want to do something like
> this.
>
> But again, that's a technical thing, that can be solved _IFF_ we want to
> change things.
>
> And that's my point here, do we want to change the current numbering
> scheme as people have expressed annoyances of the current one.
Numbering scheme? I thought we should all be using the official
kernel version NAME after the -final release? Was I mistaken?
PS1 seems like somebody forgot to update it for 2.6.27...
PS2 current numbering scheme is OK
Thanks,
Bart
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists