From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4796186D.2070906@domain.hid> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:23:09 +0100 From: Philippe Gerum MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4794DDF7.9070009@domain.hid> <4794E556.1030904@domain.hid> <4794E904.5060106@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4794E904.5060106@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: Philippe Gerum Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] Patch selection by prepare-kernel.sh (again) Reply-To: rpm@xenomai.org List-Id: "Xenomai life and development \(bug reports, patches, discussions\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Xenomai-core@domain.hid Jan Kiszka wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> Philippe, >>> >>> what was the idea behind commit #3256 [1]? It breaks the original >>> behavior of selection adeos-ipipe-2.6.23-... in the presence of 2.6.23.x >>> - and leaves a bad first impression for beginners (I received such a >>> notice here...). Was this for the special case >>> adeos-ipipe-2.6.20.21-i386-1.12-02.patch? But I think the common case >>> should take precedence over this corner case here. Unless there are more >>> issues with the original version, I would vote for restoring it. >>> >>> Alternatively, we could add a safety belt by trying to apply the patch >>> with --dry-run first and only continue if this works out without >>> failures. Can hack this up if it's acceptable. >> Oh, this check already exists! >> >> So let's try this version, which additionally cleans up the related >> documentation. Catches both 2.6.23* and 2.6.24* for me here, but I may >> miss some cases (2.4?). > > The documentation hunk was nonsense, here is a hopefully better version. > Makes sense and works fine for the kernel/arch combos I've tested so far. Merged, thanks. -- Philippe.