On Tue 2010-04-06 15:00:31, Frans Pop wrote:
quoted text
> On Tuesday 06 April 2010, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Yes, but... should module version checking be fixed so that it does
> > not interfere like that?
> 
> I don't think so. Essentially you are getting what you configured: an 
> extremely fine-grained kernel version. It's up to you to decide whether 
> the benefits of that outweigh the limitations it brings.

Yes, I want descriptive version strings. And yes, I'd like to use
modules, and do development.

Unfortunately, these two seem mutually exclusive. Given that Linus
made noises (iirc) about 'everyone should set localversion_auto'... 

quoted text
> Stripping parts of the kernel version for module compatibility checks could 
> interfere with suffixes explicitly added by distros to specify ABI 
> compatibility.

So split the version into regular parts and very detailed parts,
putting explicit user options into 'regular'?

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/