Re: Linux 2.6.32-rc3

Frans Pop
2009-10-08T15:21:25Z

Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Once you start believing the lie, suddenly all the subtrees will start
> thinking that now _their_ kernel versions are bad, so now they'll start
> to want to make the same idiotic changes to their Makefiles, or maybe
> they'll decide that they don't want to pull tagged releases, but the "one
> after the tag so that they'll get the updated Makefile".

After sleeping on it and letting it percolate a bit I understand this
argument better, and accept it.

I'll continue to increase SUBLEVEL and add -rc0 for my own builds though,
as IMHO it still makes perfect sense for versioning and managing installed
kernel packages.

The conclusion for me is: if anyone wants -rc0, simply apply it locally.

I don't see myself ever using AUTOVERSION. The reason is that I don't want
the files in /boot and dirs in /lib/modules/ to include the commit ID.

For me the kernel *version* is what's defined in the Makefile (plus any
localversion extentions). That's how I want it installed. The AUTOVERSION
part is a *revision*: an update to the tagged version.
(I don't expect you to agree with this.)

So, unless it is made possible to include AUTOVERSION in the kernel and
display it in dmesg and as part of the full 'uname -a' info *without* it
becoming part of 'uname -r', it is not a usable option for me. Sorry.

Cheers,
FJP