patches to 2.6.9 and 2.6.10 - make menuconfig shows "v2.6.8.1"

patches to 2.6.9 and 2.6.10 - make menuconfig shows "v2.6.8.1"

[Viktor Horvath]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 464 bytes --]

Hello everybody,

today I patched myself up from 2.6.7 vanilla to 2.6.10 vanilla, but
after all patches succeeded, "make menuconfig" shows "v2.6.8.1
Configuration". Even worse, a compiled kernel calls in his bootlog
himself "2.6.8.1". When installing the whole kernel package, this
behaviour doesn't show up.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I could not find an answer in the
archives.

Have a nice day,
Viktor.

Please Cc: me when answering.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: patches to 2.6.9 and 2.6.10 - make menuconfig shows "v2.6.8.1"

[linux-os]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Viktor Horvath wrote:

> Hello everybody,
>
> today I patched myself up from 2.6.7 vanilla to 2.6.10 vanilla, but
> after all patches succeeded, "make menuconfig" shows "v2.6.8.1
> Configuration". Even worse, a compiled kernel calls in his bootlog
> himself "2.6.8.1". When installing the whole kernel package, this
> behaviour doesn't show up.
>
> Sorry if this is a dumb question, but I could not find an answer in the
> archives.
>
> Have a nice day,
> Viktor.

Check the Makefile, near the beginning:

# head Makefile
VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 10
EXTRAVERSION =
NAME=Woozy Numbat

Put in the numbers you expect.
Do `make clean ; make` all over again.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.10 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
  Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush.
                  98.36% of all statistics are fiction.

Re: patches to 2.6.9 and 2.6.10 - make menuconfig shows "v2.6.8.1"

[Ken Moffat]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Viktor Horvath wrote:

> Hello everybody,
>
> today I patched myself up from 2.6.7 vanilla to 2.6.10 vanilla, but
> after all patches succeeded, "make menuconfig" shows "v2.6.8.1
> Configuration". Even worse, a compiled kernel calls in his bootlog
> himself "2.6.8.1". When installing the whole kernel package, this
> behaviour doesn't show up.
>

 Looks like you went 2.6.7, 2.6.8, 2.6.8.1 - you didn't *need* 2.6.8.1,
2.6.9 is against 2.6.8 not 2.6.8.1.  So, when you applied 2.6.9 you got
rejections (at a minimum, the top level Makefile, but the other stuff
from 2.6.8.1 should have rejected because it had already been applied).
>From there onwards, the top level Makefile still contains the 2.6.8.1
version info and doesn't match what the next patch is looking to change.

 Whenever you apply patches, you need to make sure there are no errors!
e.g. use 'find' to look for '*.rej' files.

Ken
-- 
 das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce

Re: patches to 2.6.9 and 2.6.10 - make menuconfig shows "v2.6.8.1"

[Timo Kamph]

Viktor Horvath wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> 
> today I patched myself up from 2.6.7 vanilla to 2.6.10 vanilla, but
> after all patches succeeded, "make menuconfig" shows "v2.6.8.1
> Configuration". Even worse, a compiled kernel calls in his bootlog
> himself "2.6.8.1". 

I guess you did somthing like this:

2.6.7 -patch-> 2.6.8 -patch-> 2.6.8.1 -patch-> 2.6.9 -patch-> 2.6.10.

And you didn't noticed that the 2.6.9 patch failed, because it is diffed 
against 2.6.8 and not 2.6.8.1!

If you do the patching without the 2.6.8.1 patch everything should be fine.


Timo

Re: patches to 2.6.9 and 2.6.10 - make menuconfig shows "v2.6.8.1"

[Viktor Horvath]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 552 bytes --]

On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 22:45 +0100, Timo Kamph wrote:
> I guess you did somthing like this:
> 
> 2.6.7 -patch-> 2.6.8 -patch-> 2.6.8.1 -patch-> 2.6.9 -patch-> 2.6.10.
> 
> And you didn't noticed that the 2.6.9 patch failed, because it is diffed 
> against 2.6.8 and not 2.6.8.1!

You're perfectly right. I thought "patch" would stop and ask me
something, but the error was silently buried under lots of "patching
file" lines.

> If you do the patching without the 2.6.8.1 patch everything should be fine.

It is! Thanks a lot!

Viktor.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]