linux-kernel - Re: Should SUBLEVEL be removed for 3.x ?

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]

Message-Id: <20110710160906.952bb38a.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Date:	Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:09:06 -0700
From:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
To:	Jesper Juhl <jj@...osbits.net>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Should SUBLEVEL be removed for 3.x ?

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:07:13 +0200 (CEST) Jesper Juhl wrote:

> Hi
> 
> If the plan is that the new kernel is going to be 3.0 (3.x) and the 
> -stable kernels then get to tack on a third digit with EXTRAVERSION, then 
> it seems to me that the main Makefile should get rid of SUBLEVEL - or?
> 
> Or is the plan to ditch EXTRAVERSION for -stable kernels and have them use 
> SUBLEVEL instead?
> 
> There are a few scripts that need fixing if SUBLEVEL goes the way of the 
> Dodo, but I didn't want to start fixing those without a clear indication 
> of whether or not SUBLEVEL is going to/should die.
> 
> So what's going to happen to SUBLEVEL/EXTRAVERSION?

I cannot answer this, but I'd certainly like to see a clear answer
since I also have several scripts that need such attention.

---
~Randy
--
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/