Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change

Adrian Bunk
2008-10-16T17:32:26Z

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 08:47:26AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:30:53AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Greg KH (greg@kroah.com) said:
> > > Distros properly patch things and backport "urgent OpenSSL security
> > > updates" to older versions of packages, so they would not run into this
> > > problem.
> > >
> > > Newer releases would run into this problem, but as almost all distros
> > > have huge, easy to run, build systems, a change like this would show up
> > > immediately and be fixed in a matter of hours, with the needed fixes
> > > being pushed upstream to the various packages as needed.
> > >
> > > So I really don't think this is much of a problem.
> > >
> > > It's interesting that openssl doesn't just check for Linux 1.x and
> > > assumes that Linux 9.23.12 will work just fine with what they are doing :)
> >
> > Is it really worth the effort of having any such upstream have to
> > quickly patch and release, when the only benefit listed (earlier in
> > this thread) was to inform people how old their kernel is?
>
> If we switch to a consecutive numbering scheme, which doesn't show the
> "age" of the kernel, we would still have to patch such packages, so I
> don't see the big difference.

You miss the best alternative:

Simply keep the status quo.

> thanks,
>
> greg k-h

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed