Re: [PATCH, v2] kbuild: Improve version string logic

Ingo Molnar
2009-10-15T09:04:12Z

* Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> wrote:

> On Wednesday 14 October 2009, David Rientjes wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Yeah, my patches build upon the base that you originally proposed. I
> > like the `+' suffix for configs with CONFIG_LOCALVERSION_AUTO that
> > aren't vanilla kernels.
>
> That is fine for custom kernels. I still maintain that it is hopelessly
> wrong for distro kernels.
>
> Distro kernels generally have their own naming schemes.
> Debian uses: 2.6.30-2-amd64 (<version>-<ABI>-<flavor>)
> Fedora uses: 2.6.30.5-43.fc11.i586
>
> And those kernel versions implicitly already contain the information
> that they are not vanilla kernels. So a "+" suffix is totally
> redundant.

It's not "totally redundant" _AT ALL_.

"2.6.30+-2-amd64" tells us that not only do we have the usual per distro
patches on top of vanilla .30 (which patches can be found in the deb or
src.rpm), but we _ALSO_ have extra _vanilla kernel_ commits since
v2.6.30.

So it is very much meaningful. If i hunt a weird bug visible in a distro
but not visible in my reproduction, i will be alerted to the fact that
the distro isnt using a precise tag as a base but something inbetween.

That is useful information. Why do you keep insisting that it's "totally
redundant"? It is clearly not. It's a property of the upstream kernel
version - any per distro pile of patches on top of that is a different
space. _Both_ pieces of information are important - that's why Debian
put that -5 there.

Besides, distros building on kernels inbetween -rc's is very rare. If it
happens it's sufficiently unusual to alert users to that fact via the
'+' sign. The '+' sign will go away if a distro uses a precise upstream
version.

Ingo