On Tue, 2007-01-09 at 16:35 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le Mar 9 janvier 2007 16:00, Jeffrey C. Ollie a écrit : > > > If you look a the kernel .spec you will see that there is > > "linux-2.6.19.tar.bz2" plus "patch-2.6.20-rc4.bz2". So the RPM version > > is reflecting the fact that it's the 2.6.19 plus patches. > > I suppose > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.18.tar.bz2 > + > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/patch-2.6.19.bz2 > > is 2.6.18 + patches too then? Yes, if the .spec was structured that way. But I bet that the RH kernel guys would just switch to the full 2.6.29 tarball. But you can't switch to a kernel release candidate tarball because there aren't any that I know of. Kernel release candidates are only released as patches against the previous release version. (Jeez how many more times can I use "release" in a sentence?) > The versions people expect are those upstream chose and upstream is not > calling it 2.6.19 postrelease but 2.6.20 prerelease. Now that the big > Linus feature merges happen at 2.6.x-rc1 time there is absolutely no way > post 2.6.x-rc1 kernels are closer to 2.6.(x-1) than 2.6.x The rationale for the kernel versioning scheme has been discussed endlessly in the past. I suggest that we all take a trip to the archives and refresh our memory. Jeff
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
