Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:56:04AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 09:47:51AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >...
> > > Packages are built in a chroot with the correct release installed.
> > 
> > Then why would this break if they are being built against the correct,
> > older, kernel?
> 
> How could you build userspace "against a kernel"?
> 
> sys_*uname() returns the version of the running kernel.

Great, then why does the build system depend on the running kernel?
Doesn't that sound like a bug?

> > > > and that build would be
> > > > determining things based on the system it is built on, not what it is
> > > > being built for?
> > > 
> > > No.
> > > 
> > > In the example I gave it is OpenSSL that parses the version number of 
> > > the kernel.
> > 
> > The running kernel, with the expectation that this is the kernel it is
> > going to be running on after it is built, right?  Sounds like to ensure
> > this is correct, you better be building it on the kernel that you are
> > going to run it on, or its build process is broken.
> 
> I'm not even sure whether OpenSSL actually does anything with the 
> information: The script comes from the Apache foundation and
> claims to be "Similar to config.guess but much, much smaller."
> 
> BTW: Apache 1.3 seems to ship and use the same script.

Again, depending on the kernel the product is being built on, to
determine a build-time configuration, seems quite broken if you want to
do cross-compilation.

Or you just do native builds, on the kernel you expect to run the
product, and everyone is happy and there are no errors.

thanks,

greg k-h