On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 11:04:37PM +0100, 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. > > > 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 ... There is no backported patch here. It's a bug in the rt2500 driver that caused the same definition to be repeated twice. The kernel version macro is reporting exactly the same thing in a Fedora kernel as it would if it were run against a vanilla upstream kernel.org 2.6.19.2 tree. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
