On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 01:04:42AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 12:34:44AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > > Works fine on another test system too. *sigh* -- nothing worse than > > > irreproducible results. > > > What about <http://isec.pl/vulnerabilities/isec-0017-binfmt_elf.txt>? > > that's on my list for tomorrows fun. *sigh*. > > :) > > > > Oh, and also, is that underscore in the package release just a temporary > > > testing thing? I hope so, 'cause it's really ugly. :) > > Without it, theres no way to distinguish a 2.6.9-1.1 for FC2 from > > a 2.6.9-1.1 from FC3 development (extreme example used, but you get the > > idea). I still occasionally see folks filing bugs against _ancient_ > > kernels, so its feasible that it could come from either. > > The alternative would've been something like 2.6.9-1.1.1 > > I kinda prefer the alternative. Or something like > "kernel-2.6.9-1.2.FC2.src.rpm" like a lot of the other Fedora updates. I'm > afraid the underscore is going to break something somewhere. Ah, I actually tried .FC2. Our new CVS infrastructure broke, so this was easier, quicker, and didn't involve giving Cristian a headache 8) Dave