[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YBzrL/NS0vVeTe0/@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 07:52:31 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Christoph Biedl <linux-kernel.bfrz@...chmal.in-ulm.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Kernel version numbers after 4.9.255 and 4.4.255
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:19:33PM +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> David Laight wrote...
>
> > A full wrap might catch checks for less than (say) 4.4.2 which
> > might be present to avoid very early versions.
> > So sticking at 255 or wrapping onto (say) 128 to 255 might be better.
>
> Hitting such version checks still might happen, though.
By who? For what?
> Also, any wrapping introduces a real risk package managers will see
> version numbers running backwards and therefore will refrain from
> installing an actually newer version.
package managers do not take the version from this macro, do they? If
they do, please show me which ones.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists