On Thu, Aug 31, 2000 at 02:52:56PM +0200, you [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] claimed:
>
> Does <version> also include the build number (i.e. the first part of
> UTS_VERSION) ? Is it resilient to patches where, by accident,
> EXTRAVERSION or such hasn't been incremented ? Will people always
Speaking of patches, it would be nice to have a standard way for patches
(I'm not speaking of pre-pacthes and such, but feature-adding
not-included-in-main-tree patches) to add their name and version info
somewhere in the source tree.
For example, if I have 2.2.16pre5 kernel and the following patches:
reiserfs, hedrick-ide, proconfig, lm-sensors, pc-speaker, e2compr,
softraid-0.9x
after applying the patches, I would have the something like this in the
source tree:
cat /usr/src/linux/.patches
16pre5
reiserfs-1.3.20
hedrick-ide-31052000
proconfig-0.81
lm-sensors-2.5.0
pc-speaker-0.9
e2compr-0.4.31
softraid-0.9x-6a
so that I can tell what a given source tree contains after 2 months.
Proconfig or /proc/config.gz -patch might even include this information,
so I could get this info through /proc/version or /proc/extra-version or
something. Of course, .patches could contain more than that, for
example URL and maintainer.
Just a thought.
-- v --
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
