linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 6 Oct 2009 18:40:28 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Dirk Hohndel <hohndel@...radead.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Oct 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > Unless:
> > 
> > > _That_ i think is a lot harder to confuse with the real .31 than a 
> > > v2.6.31-1234-g16123c4 version string.
> > 
> > .. are you saying that it would be just some automatically generated 
> > thing, just a crippled form of CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO? Kind of a 
> > CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO_SHORTFORM?
> 
> So how about this?
> 
> It changes how CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO works, in the following trivial 
> way:
> 
>  - if it is set, things work the way they always have, and you get a 
>    extended kernel release like
> 
> 	2.6.32-rc3-00052-g0eca52a-dirty
> 
>  - but if it is _not_ set, we'll still try to get a version from the 
>    underlying SCM (we actually support git, hg and SVN right now, even if 
>    some comments may say "git only"), and if the underlying SCM says it 
>    has a local version, we append just "+", so you get a version number 
>    like
> 
> 	2.6.32-rc3+
> 
> IOW, you'd never get 2.6.32-rc0, but you'd get either the complex git 
> version number (or SVN/hg/whatever), or at least "2.6.31+" with the "+" 
> showing that it is more than plain 2.6.31.
> 
> The "+" could be anything else, of course. The diff is pretty obvious, 
> you can argue about exactly _what_ you'd like to see as a suffix for 
> "and then some".

Could we, for consistency's sake, make it:

 	2.6.32-rc3+00052-g0eca52a-dirty
 	2.6.32-rc3+

? Or do we want to keep the old version string alone for some reason?

The reason is that i have been confused in the past by having seen 
something like:

      2.6.29-00052-g0eca52a-dirty

and parsing out (in an admittedly weak moment) the gibberish after the 
first dash. Had it said:

      2.6.29+00052-g0eca52a-dirty

i'm sure i'd have noticed that it's not vanilla v2.6.29 - that plus sign 
stands out like a lightning rod.

	Ingo
--
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/