From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: Patches version problem Date: 07 Mar 2004 23:01:03 -0500 Sender: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Message-ID: <1078718463.2583.7.camel@dhcppc4> References: <4049CE4F.9090409@pca.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4049CE4F.9090409-wlebWZzHoyE@public.gmane.org> Errors-To: acpi-devel-admin-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: To: Luca Capello Cc: ML ACPI-devel List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Luca, The 20040220 in the patch version is the ACPICA version number -- the version of the core AML interpreter, and it is updated only upon upstream updates to the interpreter. Sometimes the ACPI patch will update this number when it pulls a new version of the interpreter, but more often it will not. yes, this can be confusing. We used to update this number always, but that turned out to be even more confusing as people wouldn't know what interpreter version they were running. Still more confusing is the fact that in the latest kernel, the patch will periodically become out of date and no longer apply when the baseline kernel pulls the patch from us. This is unavoidable -- unless you run the patch against a frozen release -- eg. patch 2.6.3 instead of patching 2.6.4. If you're really intent on getting the latest w/o any confusion, then use bk rather than plain patches. details here: http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/lenb/acpi/patches/README.ACPI cheers, -Len On Sat, 2004-03-06 at 08:12, Luca Capello wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hello, > > I download again the latest patches for 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 and I've a funny (and > IMHO *very-problematic*) situation: > ===== > gismo:/usr/src# ls -l kernel/v2.6/acpi-20040220-2.6.* > - -rw-r--r-- 1 luca luca 9470 Mar 1 08:15 > kernel/v2.6/acpi-20040220-2.6.3.diff.bz2 > - -rw-r--r-- 1 luca luca 12582 Mar 2 12:24 > kernel/v2.6/acpi-20040220-2.6.4.diff.bz2 > gismo:/usr/src# > > gismo:/usr/src# ls -l /home/luca/download/acpi-20040220-2.6.* > - -rw------- 1 luca luca 15554 Mar 6 13:56 > /home/luca/download/acpi-20040220-2.6.3.diff.bz2 > - -rw-r--r-- 1 luca luca 12569 Mar 6 13:56 > /home/luca/download/acpi-20040220-2.6.4.diff.bz2 > gismo:/usr/src# > ===== > > So, there're 2 different patches with the same name and this can cause > inconsistency: if you release a patch at 20040305 (the last nigth), why do you > call it 'acpi-20040220'??? I mean, I use 'acpi-20040220' since 20040301 (as from > the 'ls -l') and now I'll use 'acpi-20040220' from 20040305: they are different, > as the size suggests, but from a 'cat /proc/acpi/info' I don't have any way to > know which one I'm using (the 20040301 or 20040305). > > Again, why the same name? > > Thx, bye, > Gismo / Luca > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFASc5OVAp7Xm10JmkRAiqqAJ4twhxRmJlrLVubOR/NeYmnYx+5agCfQ+te > RbZlgJiAeXpcddzwTFluz2I= > =s3uL > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials > Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of > GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system > administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Acpi-devel mailing list > Acpi-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/acpi-devel ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click