[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: New Kernel - athlon - Mozilla



Dave, does this mean that Red Hat is going off onto its own kernel tree
for development? If not it would be a major boon to sanity if the kernel
version at least preserved the "2.4.22-X" format so that it is clear
where the kernel development version ends and the Red Hat versioning
begins. Could you share with us some of the thought process that went
into the new versioning scheme? (Of course, this begs the question by
presuming there was a thought process rather than a Dilbertian Manager
Decision behind it.)

{^_^}
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Jones" <davej redhat com>


> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:19:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>  > Unless there's an epoch that makes it look newer, this will indeed be
>  > the case.
>
> We can't/don't/won't use epoch in the kernel rpm.
> I'm not clear on the reasons, but Arjan turned a funny colour when
> I suggested the same.
>
>  > I don't see the point of this change though.  Why not cal
>  > it 2.4.22-21.whatever or 20.2030, or even 20.1.2030, such that it is
>  > clearly newer than the already-released kernel?
>
> because that number makes no sense to have in the revision string any
more.
>
>  > Version numbers shouldn't go back without a very good reason, IMHO.
>
> Welcome to rawhide. The fix is simple in this case at least, and doesn't
> break anything. *ponder*, how will the installer handle this if someone
> tries to update a beta1 install with a beta2 CD when that appears ?
>
> Dave
>
> -- 
>  Dave Jones     http://www.codemonkey.org.uk




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]