On 08/18/10 16:52, Brice Goglin wrote:
quoted text > Le 18/08/2010 10:57, Cong Wang a écrit :
>> On 08/18/10 16:38, Brice Goglin wrote:
>>> Le 18/08/2010 10:10, Cong Wang a écrit :
>>>> On 08/18/10 15:15, Brice Goglin wrote:
>>>>> This patch (actually 01ab17887 in 2.6.36-rc1) reveals what looks
>>>>> like a
>>>>> problem to me: make kernelrelease always regenerates
>>>>> include/config/kernel.release even if it's already more recent than
>>>>> include/config/auto.conf. Is this the expected behavior? Do we really
>>>>> need include/config/kernel.release to depend on FORCE?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think so, because "LOCALVERSION=" can be given from command line,
>>>> so we need to regenerate it.
>>>>
>>>> Or am I missing your point here?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting. I assumed "make kernelrelease" was mainly here to display
>>> the release string (which means you would not need write access to the
>>> kernel build dir). And indeed make help says:
>>> kernelrelease - Output the release version string
>>> Right now, it looks like "update the version string and by the way
>>> display it too" (and you need write access).
>>>
>>
>> I believe you will also need write access even without this patch,
>> if you compile a fresh kernel. So your assumption is not correct.
>>
>
> If I revert 01ab17887f4, I don't need write access. Things always worked
> fine before 2.6.36 as far I remember.
>
Ah, I forgot Michal checked in a slightly different patch with mine. :)
Does the attached patch work for you?
---
Signed-off-by: WANG Cong <amwang@redhat.com>
