Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Tanguy Eric wrote:
Le mardi 23 janvier 2007 à 03:13 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
Tanguy Eric wrote:
I sent this message to fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx but i had no reaction
so i
try also the devel one because i find this is problem we have to solve
for the core and extras merge, no ?
I'm tired to have problems with rt2500 driver at each new fedora kernel
release because the versionning seems to not follow standards :
http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2965
What do you think about this ?
Someone have similar problems with other modules ?
This one is going all the way up to Linus since apparently he prefers
the current naming. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meeting-20070111
for the glorious details.
Rahul
Ok but my problem is not really the kernel name but how a driver can
detect correctly the kernel version and eventually the backported patch
to compile fine ...
Yes. The name of the kernel is directly related to that issue.
Rahul
Besides, of course, the fact that different distros, which even may use
the same naming conventions, includes a batch of dissimilar patches and
.config options.
Determining from a version-number alone, which of a few patch will apply
cleanly to any non-vanilla kernel is virtually impossible.
/Thomas
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
