Linux 2.4.18 - Full tarball is OK

Linux 2.4.18 - Full tarball is OK

[Chris Funderburg]

FYI - The full tarball already has the missing patch...

Linux 2.4.18 - Full tarball is OK

[Chris Funderburg]

FYI - The full tarball already has the missing patch...

So, I think, it's only patch-2.4.18 that has the problem...

Re: Linux 2.4.18 - Full tarball is OK

[Rik van Riel]

On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Alan Cox wrote:

> If so Marcelo can you put up 2.4.18-fixed patch and a borked-fixed diff ?

That would break hpa's incremental diff patches.

If somebody needs 2.4.18 + fix, they can just run 2.4.18-rc4.

regards,

Rik
-- 
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
    -- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Linux 2.4.18 - Full tarball is OK

[Beezly]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 507 bytes --]

> > FYI - The full tarball already has the missing patch...
> > So, I think, it's only patch-2.4.18 that has the problem...
> 
> Argh thats the worst possible case. That means you can't do a single correct
> 2.4.18- patch 
> 
> If so Marcelo can you put up 2.4.18-fixed patch and a borked-fixed diff ?

If this is the case... which "version" of 2.4.18 does 2.4.19-pre1 patch
from?

I'm guessing it patches you from the "patched-from-2.4.17" release of
2.4.18? (if that makes sense)

Beezly


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: Linux 2.4.18 - Full tarball is OK

[Alan Cox]

> FYI - The full tarball already has the missing patch...
> So, I think, it's only patch-2.4.18 that has the problem...

Argh thats the worst possible case. That means you can't do a single correct
2.4.18- patch 

If so Marcelo can you put up 2.4.18-fixed patch and a borked-fixed diff ?

Re: Linux 2.4.18 - Full tarball is OK

[Dan Chen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 582 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 10:37:20PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > FYI - The full tarball already has the missing patch...
> > So, I think, it's only patch-2.4.18 that has the problem...
> 
> Argh thats the worst possible case. That means you can't do a single correct
> 2.4.18- patch 
> 
> If so Marcelo can you put up 2.4.18-fixed patch and a borked-fixed diff ?

cdub_ and I just checked: the 18-final tarball, patch, and incr are all
missing the fix in fs/binfmt_elf.c

-- 
Dan Chen                 crimsun@email.unc.edu
GPG key:   www.unc.edu/~crimsun/pubkey.gpg.asc

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: Linux 2.4.18 - Full tarball is OK

[David Rees]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 09:49:58PM +0000, Chris Funderburg wrote:
> 
> FYI - The full tarball already has the missing patch...
> 
> So, I think, it's only patch-2.4.18 that has the problem...

Uh, no, it doesn't.  Using linux-2.4.18.tar.bz2 dated Feb 25, 2002 11:40am:

diff -urN linux-2.4.18-rc4/Makefile linux-2.4.18/Makefile
--- linux-2.4.18-rc4/Makefile	Mon Feb 25 14:35:52 2002
+++ linux-2.4.18/Makefile	Mon Feb 25 11:37:52 2002
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 VERSION = 2
 PATCHLEVEL = 4
 SUBLEVEL = 18
-EXTRAVERSION = -rc4
+EXTRAVERSION =
 
 KERNELRELEASE=$(VERSION).$(PATCHLEVEL).$(SUBLEVEL)$(EXTRAVERSION)
 
diff -urN linux-2.4.18-rc4/fs/binfmt_elf.c linux-2.4.18/fs/binfmt_elf.c
--- linux-2.4.18-rc4/fs/binfmt_elf.c	Mon Feb 25 14:35:55 2002
+++ linux-2.4.18/fs/binfmt_elf.c	Mon Feb 25 11:38:08 2002
@@ -564,9 +564,6 @@
 			// printk(KERN_WARNING "ELF: Ambiguous type, using
ELF\n");
 			interpreter_type = INTERPRETER_ELF;
 		}
-	} else {
-		/* Executables without an interpreter also need a
personality  */
-		SET_PERSONALITY(elf_ex, ibcs2_interpreter);
 	}
 
 	/* OK, we are done with that, now set up the arg stuff,

Re: Linux 2.4.18 - Full tarball is OK

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <Pine.LNX.4.33L.0202251931360.7820-100000@imladris.surriel.com>
By author:    Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > If so Marcelo can you put up 2.4.18-fixed patch and a borked-fixed diff ?
> That would break hpa's incremental diff patches.
> If somebody needs 2.4.18 + fix, they can just run 2.4.18-rc4.
> 

Since the tarball apparently is OK and it's only the patch that's
different, just re-create the patch, put it in the proper place, and
make sure the file date on the patch is different; the incremental
diff will be regenerated to match.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>

Re: Linux 2.4.18 - Full tarball is OK

[Alan Cox]

> > If so Marcelo can you put up 2.4.18-fixed patch and a borked-fixed diff ?
> 
> That would break hpa's incremental diff patches.
> If somebody needs 2.4.18 + fix, they can just run 2.4.18-rc4.

That isnt the problem. Is 2.4.19-pre1 a patch versus the 2.4.18 tarball
or the 2.4.18 patch ? Continue ad infinitum through every 2.4 release,
add hundreds of confused emails about them to the kernel list and it ceases
to look a smart idea to leave the two not matching

Alan

Re: Linux 2.4.18 - Full tarball is OK

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <200202252149.g1PLnwe13182@directcommunications.net> you wrote:
> So, I think, it's only patch-2.4.18 that has the problem...

Which is a pretty serious problem. Because ppl using patches hav different
source from ppl using tarball. This will get a lot of confusion for the 2.4.19
patch. I suggest to fix the 2.4.18 patch, even it this is not the best method
to keep unique version numbers.

Greetings
Bernd

Re: Linux 2.4.18 - Full tarball is OK

[Alan Cox]

> > 2.4.18- patch=20
> >=20
> > If so Marcelo can you put up 2.4.18-fixed patch and a borked-fixed diff ?
> 
> cdub_ and I just checked: the 18-final tarball, patch, and incr are all
> missing the fix in fs/binfmt_elf.c

Cool - in which case its a non problem.