Am Dienstag, den 03.01.2006, 10:24 -0500 schrieb Dave Jones: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 03:16:31PM +0000, Andy Burns wrote: > > http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/kernel/linux-2.6.15.tar.bz2.sign?rev=1.1&sortby=date&view=auto > > >* Tue Jan 3 2006 Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >- Update to 2.6.15 final. > > Nice milestone :-) > > Just wondering about version numbering in Fedora, how come the rawhide > > kernel has been named 2.6.14-1.x when it has clearly been tracking > > 2.6.15-rcx-gitx > > iirc it confuses rpm when faced with decisions like > "which is newer, 2.6.14.1 or 2.6.14-git1" Thats true. In Fedora Extras for example something like this would have to be used: Version: 2.6.15 Release: 0.rc1.git1 to circumvent problems until Version: 2.6.15 Release: 1 is released. > So we make its life simple, and stick with a 2.6.x-CVSident_$releasever I disagree. IMHO is confuses users, journalists (they wrote "FC4 is based on a 2.6.11 kernel" -- but in fact it was 2.6.12rc5) and packagers, that sometimes have to add patches like this -#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,15) +#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(2,6,14) to their packages. Such patches also need to be applied on a case by case basis in the spec file in case the package is build for a real 2.6.14. /me was bitten by a problem similar to this example just some days ago CU thl -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list