Re: kernel versionning problem

[Thomas M Steenholdt <tmus tmus dk>]

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Tanguy Eric wrote:
> > Le mardi 23 janvier 2007 à 03:13 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> > > Tanguy Eric wrote:
> > > > I sent this message to fedora-list redhat com but i had no reaction 
> > > > so i
> > > > try also the devel one because i find this is problem we have to solve
> > > > for the core and extras merge, no ?
> > > >
> > > > I'm tired to have problems with rt2500 driver at each new fedora kernel
> > > > release because the versionning seems to not follow standards :
> > > > http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2965
> > > >
> > > > What do you think about this ?
> > > >
> > > > Someone have similar problems with other modules ?
> > > This one is going all the way up to Linus since apparently he prefers 
> > > the current naming. See 
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20070111 
> > > for the glorious details.
> > >
> > > Rahul
> > Ok but my problem is not really the kernel name but how a driver can
> > detect correctly the kernel version and eventually the backported patch
> > to compile fine ...
>
> Yes. The name of the kernel is directly related to that issue.
>
> Rahul
Besides, of course, the fact that different distros, which even may use 
the same naming conventions, includes a batch of dissimilar patches and 
.config options.
Determining from a version-number alone, which of a few patch will apply 
cleanly to any non-vanilla kernel is virtually impossible.

/Thomas