Hi Albert.
Since you appear to be determined to ignore reason and stick to your
misguided guns I'll leave you to destroy all the good work that has
gone into the Linux kernel's documentation and make it something even
Bill Gates would be proud of. However, I'll stick to documentation
that actuall
Riley Williams writes:
> Hi Albert.
The rule should be like this:
List the lowest version number required to get
2.2.xx-level features while running a 2.4.xx kernel.
>>> Replace that "a 2.2.xx" with "my current" and remove all
>>> restrictions on what the current kernel
Hi Albert.
>>> The rule should be like this:
>>>
>>>List the lowest version number required to get
>>>2.2.xx-level features while running a 2.4.xx kernel.
>> That's a meaningless definition, and can only be taken as such. What
>> use would such a list be to somebody wishing (like I
Riley Williams writes:
>> The rule should be like this:
>>
>> List the lowest version number required to get
>> 2.2.xx-level features while running a 2.4.xx kernel.
>
> That's a meaningless definition, and can only be taken as such. What
> use would such a list be to somebody wishing (l
Hi Albert.
>> +o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
> Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too old,
>>> Exactly why? Mere missing features don't make for a required
>>> upgrade. Version number inflation should be resisted.
>> These days you can mount
Hi Andries.
>> {Shrug} Thinking isn't sufficient - check your facts.
> Poor Riley,
>
> Probably I should not answer, I think you know all the facts
> already. But just to be sure:
> (i) There are two different packages, kbd and a forked version,
> console-tools. Both contain roughly the
> If the old mount can still do what it used to do,
> then "mount" need not be listed at all.
Well, I started saying that the mount line should be deleted,
so we somewhat agree.
> If I run the mount command from Red Hat 6.2, using it
> as intended for a 2.2.xx kernel, doesn't everything work?
R
Andries.Brouwer writes:
>> From: "Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +o Console Tools # 0.3.3# loadkeys -V
> +o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
Concerning mount: (i) the version mention
> {Shrug} Thinking isn't sufficient - check your facts.
Poor Riley,
Probably I should not answer, I think you know all the facts already.
But just to be sure:
(i) There are two different packages, kbd and a forked version,
console-tools. Both contain roughly the same programs.
In your earlier m
Hi Andries.
> Neither am I - but, according to comments from RedHat a while back,
> they repackage mount separately because they provide a NEWER version
> of mount than is in the util-linux package. This will ALSO result in
> `mount --version` giving the wrong answer...
> Th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> From: Riley Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> {Shrug} Please explain why I was unable to get ver_linux to report a
>
> % ./loadkeys -h 2>&1 | head -1
> loadkeys version 1.06
>
> Maybe nothing has changed here the past eight years. It just works.
> Perhaps you
From: Riley Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Neither am I - but, according to comments from RedHat a while back,
they repackage mount separately because they provide a NEWER version
of mount than is in the util-linux package. This will ALSO result in
`mount --version` giving the w
Hi Andries.
> [Yes, I wrote, replying to your mail, just because I happened to
> notice the incorrect or debatable lines in your patch. Let me cc
> the Changes maintainer - maybe Chris Ricker.]
-o util-linux 2.10o # fdformat --version
+o util-linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>> +o Console Tools # 0.3.3# loadkeys -V
> >>> +o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
> >>
> >> Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too old,
> On the
From: "Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> +o Console Tools # 0.3.3# loadkeys -V
>>> +o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
>>
>> Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too ol
Alexander Viro writes:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> +o Console Tools # 0.3.3# loadkeys -V
>>> +o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
>>
>> Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too old,
Exactly why? Mere missing features don't mak
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 08:29:53PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There is no other source. Some people like to repack but that
> has no influence on versions.
I believe that RedHat don't build mount and util-linux from the same tree.
Maybe they do internally, but when you look at the RPMs, th
From: Riley Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Yes, I wrote, replying to your mail, just because I happened
to notice the incorrect or debatable lines in your patch.
Let me cc the Changes maintainer - maybe Chris Ricker.]
>> -o util-linux 2.10o # fdformat --ver
Hi Andries.
>> -o util-linux 2.10o # fdformat --version
>> +o util-linux # 2.10o# fdformat --version
> Looking at fdformat to get the util-linux version is perhaps not
> the most reliable way - some people have fdformat from fd-utils
> or so
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Looking at fdformat to get the util-linux version is perhaps
>not the most reliable way - some people have fdformat from fd-utils or so.
>Using mount --version would be better - I am not aware of any
>other mount distribution.
Bad idea. RedHat has mount and util-linux
> Many systems have mount (and bsdutils) separated from util-linux
> as a binary package. Built from the same source, indeed, but...
I hope that this habit is dying. Long ago that was
reasonable, but these days (years) it only causes extra work.
>> Concerning Console Tools: maybe kbd-1.05 is uni
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > +o Console Tools # 0.3.3# loadkeys -V
> > +o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
>
> Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too old,
> (ii) mount is in util-linux. Conclusion: the mount line
> should be
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 10:39:53AM +, Riley Williams wrote:
> -o util-linux 2.10o # fdformat --version
> +o util-linux # 2.10o# fdformat --version
Looking at fdformat to get the util-linux version is perhaps
not the most reliable way - some p
23 matches
Mail list logo
