On Wednesday, December 14, 2005 03:21:36 PM -0600 Troy Benjegerdes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 12:31:00PM -0500, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote:
On Wednesday, December 14, 2005 09:04:57 AM -0500 Tom Keiser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basing this on cml_version_number has a few disadvantages:
>
> (1)compile date becomes part of the decision
> (2)autoconf flags cannot change syscall and ioctl interface behavior
> (3)it's overly brittle; the kernel interfaces shouldn't be assumed to
> change between every minor revision
> (4)because of the packaging issues Russ brought up, we would end up
> sending spurious warnings to users (who would probably send in
> unnecessary bug reports)
Indeed, this is not what the CML version number is for, and overloading
it for that purpose is a bad idea. I've had too many bad experiences
with software that breaks because it insists on exact matching of
software version numbers instead of using interface versions.
How about we just dump the CML version as informative info. I have a
patch available here:
http://source.scl.ameslab.gov/hg/openafs-misc-fixes?cmd=changeset;node=df
929d0767ee2d295c4b0c3139a0aebd9dc37fae
That sounds useful, except getting the version string ought to be an
unprivileged pioctl, so anyone can do it, and so arla can support it. You
can use _CVICEIOCTL(4) for this, if you send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
saying what you're calling it and what it does.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
