funny way of numbering kernel versions

[Dave Jones]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 11:33:25PM -0800, Per Bjornsson wrote:
 > On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 02:11 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
 > 
 > >  > 2.6.9-1.650_FC4 will not be higher than 2.6.9-1.667
 > > 
 > > Damn, you got me. This is the only annoying thing with having
 > > multiple releases on the same kernel level. They're not
 > > /exactly/ the same kernel, and as they come different
 > > parts of the CVS tree, it's perfectly feasable for
 > > a 2.6.9-1.650 to show up in FC2, FC3, and devel (FC4).
 > 
 > I sure hope not, you just can't put out an update for a released distro
 > that doesn't get scored as higher by RPM... Presumably I'm misparsing
 > what you're saying here?

yes, you are. updates for a specific release will never go
backwards, but if I get a bug filed against 2.6.9-1.650,
I don't know if that's the FC2 version, FC3, devel...

 > > I could do something really ugly, and just bump the
 > > devel kernels up past the last released FC3 kernel
 > > each time I do an update, but that is a little sick.
 > 
 > Well, here's a suggestion that you might want to shoot down as stupid
 > and uninformed: How about using the first digit of the release tag? What
 > does it actually mean for the kernel - for other packages it's certainly
 > just a serial number... Why not bump it to "4" right away, and then let
 > that digit spill over to the stable FC4 kernels when Rawhide takes off
 > on the "5" path. Alternatively, of course, there's some deep meaning to
 > the number "1" which prevents this from being sane at all.

You mean use 2.6.9-4.650 ? unfortunatly the '1.650' is the CVS tag.
without some creative forking, its not going to work.

		Dave