From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen-unstable: 3.0-unstable or 3.1-unstable? Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 15:04:22 +0100 Message-ID: References: <200708171455.42352.Christoph.Egger@amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200708171455.42352.Christoph.Egger@amd.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Christoph Egger , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Yes, 3.0-unstable makes no sense. It should probably be 3.2-unstable, as these are unstable bits that will be part of the stable 3.2 release. 3.1 is already out the door. -- Keir On 17/8/07 13:55, "Christoph Egger" wrote: > > When I build xen-unstable, I see this line: > > tools/figlet/figlet -d tools/figlet Xen 3.0-unstable >> > include/xen/compile.h.new > > Is xen-unstable 3.0-unstable or is this 3.1-unstable? > > In the latter case, the patch below should be applied. > > > diff -r 256160ff19b7 xen/Makefile > --- a/xen/Makefile Thu Aug 16 13:27:59 2007 +0100 > +++ b/xen/Makefile Fri Aug 17 14:51:33 2007 +0200 > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > # This is the correct place to edit the build version. > # All other places this is stored (eg. compile.h) should be autogenerated. > export XEN_VERSION = 3 > -export XEN_SUBVERSION = 0 > +export XEN_SUBVERSION = 1 > export XEN_EXTRAVERSION ?= -unstable$(XEN_VENDORVERSION) > export XEN_FULLVERSION = $(XEN_VERSION). > $(XEN_SUBVERSION)$(XEN_EXTRAVERSION) > -include xen-version >