Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

[Gene Heskett]

Greetings;

I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy 
ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION, which was 
set to .2 in the .2 patch.  Now my 2.6.12 modules will need a refresh 
build. :(

So whats the proper patching sequence to build a 2.6.12.3?

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.35% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

[Brian Gerst]

Gene Heskett wrote:
> Greetings;
> 
> I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy 
> ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION, which was 
> set to .2 in the .2 patch.  Now my 2.6.12 modules will need a refresh 
> build. :(
> 
> So whats the proper patching sequence to build a 2.6.12.3?
> 

The dot-release patches are not incremental.  You apply each one to the 
base 2.6.12 tree.

--
				Brian Gerst

Re: Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

[Gene Heskett]

On Monday 25 July 2005 12:38, Brian Gerst wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Greetings;
>>
>> I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a
>> tummy ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION,
>> which was set to .2 in the .2 patch.  Now my 2.6.12 modules will
>> need a refresh build. :(
>>
>> So whats the proper patching sequence to build a 2.6.12.3?
>
>The dot-release patches are not incremental.  You apply each one to
> the base 2.6.12 tree.
>
Thats what I thought, and I blew that tree away & rebuilt it again 
using the same script, and it worked.  Go figure...

Thanks Brian.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.35% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

[Kurt Wall]

On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Brian Gerst took 21 lines to write:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> >Greetings;
> >
> >I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy 
> >ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION, which was 
> >set to .2 in the .2 patch.  Now my 2.6.12 modules will need a refresh 
> >build. :(
> >
> >So whats the proper patching sequence to build a 2.6.12.3?
> >
> 
> The dot-release patches are not incremental.  You apply each one to the 
> base 2.6.12 tree.

This bit me a while back, too. I'll submit a patch to the top-level
README to spell it out.

Kurt
-- 
You cannot propel yourself forward by patting yourself on the back.

Re: Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 21:28 -0400, Kurt Wall wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Brian Gerst took 21 lines to write:
> > Gene Heskett wrote:
> > >Greetings;
> > >
> > >I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy 
> > >ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION, which was 
> > >set to .2 in the .2 patch.  Now my 2.6.12 modules will need a refresh 
> > >build. :(
> > >
> > >So whats the proper patching sequence to build a 2.6.12.3?
> > >
> > 
> > The dot-release patches are not incremental.  You apply each one to the 
> > base 2.6.12 tree.
> 
> This bit me a while back, too. I'll submit a patch to the top-level
> README to spell it out.

Someone should also fix the home page of kernel.org. Since there's no
link on that page that points to the full 2.6.12. Since a lot of the
patches on that page go directly against the 2.6.12 kernel and not
2.6.12.3, it would be nice to get the full source of that kernel from
the home page.

If I want to incremently build the 2.6.13-rc3-mm1, would I need to
download the 2.6.12 tar ball, followed by the 2.6.13-rc3 patch and then
the 2.6.13-rc3-mm1 patch and apply them that way?  If so, I can get all
the patches but the starting point.  Yes I could also download the full
version of any of these, but it still seems to make sense to include the
starting point of the patches on the home page.

Just a thought,

-- Steve

Re: Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 594 bytes --]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:50:50 EDT, Steven Rostedt said:

> Someone should also fix the home page of kernel.org. Since there's no
> link on that page that points to the full 2.6.12. Since a lot of the
> patches on that page go directly against the 2.6.12 kernel and not
> 2.6.12.3, it would be nice to get the full source of that kernel from
> the home page.

Even more to the point - when 2.6.13 comes out, there will be a patch against
2.6.12, not 2.6.12.N, which means you get to download the 2.6.12.N tarball,
the 2.6.12.N patch, patch -R that, and *then* apply the 2.6.13 patch.

Blegga. :)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 22:34 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> 
> Even more to the point - when 2.6.13 comes out, there will be a patch against
> 2.6.12, not 2.6.12.N, which means you get to download the 2.6.12.N tarball,
> the 2.6.12.N patch, patch -R that, and *then* apply the 2.6.13 patch.

The sad part of this, is that I have actually done that :-/ (when 2.6.12
came out s/\.12/.11/ s/\.13/.12/).

-- Steve

Re: Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

[Gene Heskett]

On Tuesday 26 July 2005 21:50, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 21:28 -0400, Kurt Wall wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Brian Gerst took 21 lines 
to write:
>> > Gene Heskett wrote:
>> > >Greetings;
>> > >
>> > >I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a
>> > > tummy ache because I didn't check the Makefile's
>> > > EXTRA_VERSION, which was set to .2 in the .2 patch.  Now my
>> > > 2.6.12 modules will need a refresh build. :(
>> > >
>> > >So whats the proper patching sequence to build a 2.6.12.3?
>> >
>> > The dot-release patches are not incremental.  You apply each one
>> > to the base 2.6.12 tree.
>>
>> This bit me a while back, too. I'll submit a patch to the
>> top-level README to spell it out.
>
>Someone should also fix the home page of kernel.org. Since there's
> no link on that page that points to the full 2.6.12. Since a lot of
> the patches on that page go directly against the 2.6.12 kernel and
> not 2.6.12.3, it would be nice to get the full source of that
> kernel from the home page.
>
Apparently you are useing a browser to suck that stuff?  Use gftp and 
walk right up the dir structure to it.  Its not hidden at all that 
way.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.35% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.