Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
- From: Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 08:17:48 -0700
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 03:49:43PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 05:25:09PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Hi,
Hi Greg,
...
Yes, we can handle the major/minor macros in the kernel to provide a
compatible number so that automated scripts will not break, that's not a
big deal.
Any thoughts?
...
how much of userspace breaks when we suddenly "just for fun" change the
version numbering scheme in a very radical way?
I'm not thinking of scripts for building the kernel.
I'm thinking of the fact that starting with glibc different pieces of
userspace software interpret the kernel version number they get from
various sources like e.g. <linux/version.h>, "uname -r" or an ioctl.
As a random example, the "config" script of OpenSSL 0.9.8g contains the
following:
<-- snip -->
...
RELEASE=`(uname -r) 2>/dev/null` || RELEASE="unknown"
...
case "${SYSTEM}:${RELEASE}:${VERSION}:${MACHINE}" in
...
Linux:[2-9].*)
echo "${MACHINE}-whatever-linux2"; exit 0
;;
Linux:1.*)
echo "${MACHINE}-whatever-linux1"; exit 0
;;
...
<-- snip -->
Change the version number of the kernel in the way you suggest, and
trying to build it will fail with:
<-- snip -->
$ ./config
Operating system: x86_64-whatever-Linux
This system (Linux) is not supported. See file INSTALL for details.
$
<-- snip -->
If a distribution will try to autobuild an urgent OpenSSL security
update for their stable release in a chroot on a machine running
kernel 2009.2.3 they will surely love you for being responsible
for this...
Distros properly patch things and backport "urgent OpenSSL security
updates" to older versions of packages, so they would not run into this
problem.
Newer releases would run into this problem, but as almost all distros
have huge, easy to run, build systems, a change like this would show up
immediately and be fixed in a matter of hours, with the needed fixes
being pushed upstream to the various packages as needed.
So I really don't think this is much of a problem.
It's interesting that openssl doesn't just check for Linux 1.x and
assumes that Linux 9.23.12 will work just fine with what they are doing :)
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
- From: Adrian Bunk
- Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
- From: Bill Nottingham
- Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
- References:
- [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
- From: Greg KH
- Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
- From: Adrian Bunk
- [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 1/1] cciss: fix regression, sysfs symlink missing
- Next by Date: Re: [GIT PULL] SET_PERSONALITY cleanup.
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
