Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] scripts: ver_linux: expand and fix list

Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] scripts: ver_linux: expand and fix list

[Jonathan Corbet]

Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@airmail.cc> writes:

> It is a pain in the ass to compare the software versions on the running
> system (scripts/ver_linux) with the minimal required versions.
> Sorting both lists the same way makes side-by-side comparisons a simple task.

OK, we're getting a lot closer.  But the above text has nothing to do
with what this patch does - there is no sorting here.  What you are
doing is making the names of the tools consistent and adding those that
are missing; that's what your changelog should say.

> fix path to changes.rst
>
> make toolnames uniform with the toolnames in Changes.rst
> make version commands uniform with Changes.rst
>
> Add missing tools in ver_linux
>  bash, bc, bindgen, btrfs-progs, Clang, gdb,  GNU awk, GNU tar,
>  GRUB, GRUB2, gtags, iptables, kmod, mcelog, mkimage, openssl,
>  pahole, Python, Rust, Sphinx, squashfs-tools
>
> Signed-off-by: Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@airmail.cc>
> ---
>  scripts/ver_linux | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

Otherwise I think the patch is good.  If this were the only issue, I
would just apply the patch and fix the changelog myself.

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] workflow: process/changes.rst: expand and cleanup list

[Jonathan Corbet]

Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@airmail.cc> writes:

> It is a pain in the ass to compare the software versions on the running
> system with the minimal required versions (process/changes.rst).
> Sorting both lists the same way makes side-by-side comparisons a simple task.

Again, this text doesn't belong here - describe *this patch.

> add reference to ./scripts/ver_linux
> needn't -> do not need to

That seems like a pointless change, but whtever

> make toolnames uniform with the toolnames in  ver_linux
> make version commands uniform with ver_linux
>
> remove footnote for sphinx
>  in the paragraph before the list it says:
>  "Also, not all tools are necessary on all systems;
>  obviously, if you don't have any PC Card hardware, for example,
>  you probably needn't concern yourself with pcmciautils."
>
> remove "(optional)" for the same reason as above

Here you have lost some information - now the document doesn't say
*which* tools are optional.  That is, I think, not ideal.

> add gdb version 7.2 as mentioned in:
>  Documentation/process/debugging/gdb-kernel-debugging.rst
>  scripts/gdb/vmlinux-gdb.py
>
> Signed-off-by: Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@airmail.cc>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/changes.rst | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] workflow: process/changes.rst: expand and cleanup list

[Manuel Ebner]

On Tue, 2026-03-17 at 09:04 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@airmail.cc> writes:
> > remove footnote for sphinx
> >  in the paragraph before the list it says:
> >  "Also, not all tools are necessary on all systems;
> >  obviously, if you don't have any PC Card hardware, for example,
> >  you probably needn't concern yourself with pcmciautils."

i understand this paragraph like this:
most or all tools can be optional, depending on the specific use case.
e.g. quota-tools is optional for people compiling the kernel.
that's why i removed the optional markings.

and pcmciautils, the example in the the file, is not marked as optional in changes.rst:

====================== ===============  ========================================
        Program        Minimal version       Command to check the version
====================== ===============  ========================================
[...]
pcmciautils            004              pccardctl -V

> > remove "(optional)" for the same reason as above
> 
> Here you have lost some information - now the document doesn't say
> *which* tools are optional.  That is, I think, not ideal.

that's true.
my question is: what are the tools optional for?
or what is the criteria for "optional"?

Manuel

Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] workflow: process/changes.rst: expand and cleanup list

[Jonathan Corbet]

Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@airmail.cc> writes:

> On Tue, 2026-03-17 at 09:04 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@airmail.cc> writes:
>> > remove footnote for sphinx
>> >  in the paragraph before the list it says:
>> >  "Also, not all tools are necessary on all systems;
>> >  obviously, if you don't have any PC Card hardware, for example,
>> >  you probably needn't concern yourself with pcmciautils."
>
> i understand this paragraph like this:
> most or all tools can be optional, depending on the specific use case.
> e.g. quota-tools is optional for people compiling the kernel.
> that's why i removed the optional markings.
>
> and pcmciautils, the example in the the file, is not marked as optional in changes.rst:
>
> ====================== ===============  ========================================
>         Program        Minimal version       Command to check the version
> ====================== ===============  ========================================
> [...]
> pcmciautils            004              pccardctl -V

The markings can certainly be done in a more thoughtful way; I don't see
that as an argument for simply removing them, though.

>> > remove "(optional)" for the same reason as above
>> 
>> Here you have lost some information - now the document doesn't say
>> *which* tools are optional.  That is, I think, not ideal.
>
> that's true.
> my question is: what are the tools optional for?
> or what is the criteria for "optional"?

Well, that would be an awfully nice addition to the documentation, but I
wouldn't require that to get your current changes in :)

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] scripts: ver_linux: sort

[Jonathan Corbet]

Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@airmail.cc> writes:

> It is a pain in the ass to compare the software versions on the running
> system (scripts/ver_linux) with the minimal required versions.
> Sorting both lists the same way makes side-by-side comparisons a simple task.
>
> sort output alphabetically

Sort the output of *what*?  Yes, one can figure it out from reading the
patch, but you shouldn't make readers do that.

> Signed-off-by: Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@airmail.cc>
> ---
>  scripts/ver_linux | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] workflow: process/changes.rst: sort list

[Jonathan Corbet]

Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@airmail.cc> writes:

> It is a pain in the ass to compare the software versions on the running
> system (scripts/ver_linux) with the minimal required versions.
> Sorting both lists the same way makes side-by-side comparisons a simple task.
>
> sort output alphabetically

Need I say that providing identical changelogs for two different patches
is a sign that something isn't quite right?

The change itself looks fine.

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] workflow, scripts: sort changes.rst and ver_linux

[Jonathan Corbet]

Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@airmail.cc> writes:

> It is a pain in the ass to compare the software versions on the running
> system (scripts/ver_linux) with the minimal required versions (changes.rst).
> Sorting both lists the same way makes side-by-side comparisons a simple task.

As noted in the individual patches, we're getting closer, but not quite
there yet.

Also, overall, I am still not thrilled about you having send me patches
under a false name.  I need you to, at a bare minimum, acknowledge that
this was a violation of the trust that the kernel project depends on,
and that the current name you are using is the real one.

Thanks,

jon

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] workflow, scripts: sort changes.rst and ver_linux

[Manuel Ebner]

On Tue, 2026-03-17 at 09:08 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@airmail.cc> writes:
> 
> > ...
> Also, overall, I am still not thrilled about you having send me patches
> under a false name.  I need you to, at a bare minimum, acknowledge that
> this was a violation of the trust that the kernel project depends on,
> and that the current name you are using is the real one.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jon

Hello Jon,
unfortunately I have an issue with my e-mail provider. Because of an spamhouse.org
entry my mails do not show up in the mailing lists.
Do you mind me changing my e-mail address to manuelebner@mailbox.org

Manuel

Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] workflow, scripts: sort changes.rst and ver_linux

[Jonathan Corbet]

Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@airmail.cc> writes:

> On Tue, 2026-03-17 at 09:08 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>> Manuel Ebner <manuelebner@airmail.cc> writes:
>> 
>> > ...
>> Also, overall, I am still not thrilled about you having send me patches
>> under a false name.  I need you to, at a bare minimum, acknowledge that
>> this was a violation of the trust that the kernel project depends on,
>> and that the current name you are using is the real one.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> jon
>
> Hello Jon,
> unfortunately I have an issue with my e-mail provider. Because of an spamhouse.org
> entry my mails do not show up in the mailing lists.
> Do you mind me changing my e-mail address to manuelebner@mailbox.org

Use whichever address works for you, that is not a problem.

jon