On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 10:36:00AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > for reasons that don't need explaining, i need to rebuild my current > > 3.0.0... kernel so that it returns a "uname" version number of > > "2.whatever". i simply have an app i want to run that checks the > > output of "uname" and if it doesn't see a major number of "2", it goes > > a bit squirrelly. > > > > there's no *technical* reason i can see for the app to be that > > restrictive, so i was just going to hack the top level Makefile of my > > git clone and label this as a 2.99.99 kernel. is there anything that > > would break because of that kind of hackery? > > Why not just call it 2.6.40 like Fedora is doing for this very reason? i could do that as well, i just wanted to verify that manually tweaking it this way wouldn't clash with any other versioning info hidden somewhere else in the source tree. i'll know in about 10 minutes once this build is done. rday _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
