Hello,
Why were snapshots (-bk) removed from http://www.kernel.org? I can't see any relevant
post in LKML.
Many thanks in advance,
Norberto
--
Norberto Bensa
inform?tica BeNSA
4544-9692 / 15-4190-6344
Buenos Aires, Argentina
On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 02:14:33PM -0300, Norberto Bensa wrote:
[quote rewrapped to keep it within 80 columns]
> Why were snapshots (-bk) removed from http://www.kernel.org? I can't see any
> relevant post in LKML.
It happens whenever the kernel.org scripts get confused. It's happened
at least once before; this time I think it happened when the fixes
from 2.6.11.6 were merged into Linus's BK tree.
You can still get to the snapshots using this URL, but as I said, the
scripts are confused right now:
http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/
-Barry K. Nathan <[email protected]>
Barry K. Nathan wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 02:14:33PM -0300, Norberto Bensa wrote:
> [quote rewrapped to keep it within 80 columns]
>
> > Why were snapshots (-bk) removed from http://www.kernel.org? I can't see any
> > relevant post in LKML.
>
> You can still get to the snapshots using this URL, but as I said, the
> scripts are confused right now:
> http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/
Hm. No. I mean there are no more testing-bk snapshots. For example. I can't
find 2.6.12-rc1-bk2.bz2; I have downloaded it on Saturday, but I can't find
testing bk snapshots anymore. Is this what you are referring as "scripts are
confused"? Or am I obliged to use bitkeeper from now on?
Many thanks,
Norberto
--
Norberto Bensa
inform?tica BeNSA
4544-9692 / 15-4190-6344
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Norberto Bensa wrote:
> Barry K. Nathan wrote:
>
>>On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 02:14:33PM -0300, Norberto Bensa wrote:
>>[quote rewrapped to keep it within 80 columns]
>>
>>
>>>Why were snapshots (-bk) removed from http://www.kernel.org? I can't see any
>>>relevant post in LKML.
>>
>>You can still get to the snapshots using this URL, but as I said, the
>>scripts are confused right now:
>>http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/
>
>
> Hm. No. I mean there are no more testing-bk snapshots. For example. I can't
> find 2.6.12-rc1-bk2.bz2; I have downloaded it on Saturday, but I can't find
> testing bk snapshots anymore. Is this what you are referring as "scripts are
> confused"? Or am I obliged to use bitkeeper from now on?
Did you look in
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/old/ ?
--
~Randy
Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> Did you look in
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/old/ ?
So "script are confused" mean "look in snapshots/old" :D
I was expecting them to be in testing/something...
Thanks Randy and Barry!
Best regards,
Norberto
--
Norberto Bensa
inform?tica BeNSA
4544-9692 / 15-4190-6344
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
> Did you look in
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/old/ ?
>
Yes I did.
Latest is 2.6.12-rc1-bk2, March 26.
None since then?
sean
sean wrote:
> Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
>>
>> Did you look in
>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/old/ ?
>>
>
> Yes I did.
>
> Latest is 2.6.12-rc1-bk2, March 26.
>
> None since then?
I can't explain it other than "the snapshots are broken."
All I do is look around for them, and behold, just look in
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/
for the 2.6.11.6-bk snapshots.
It's confusing and it needs to be fixed....
Jeff, is there some way that I can help to fix this,
with the requirement (for me) that I not be required to use BK?
I'll munge scripts or whatever...
but I guess that I'll also need a kernel.org account to do that.
--
~Randy
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 07:47:24PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> sean wrote:
> >Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>Did you look in
> >>http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/old/ ?
> >>
> >
> >Yes I did.
> >
> >Latest is 2.6.12-rc1-bk2, March 26.
> >
> >None since then?
>
> I can't explain it other than "the snapshots are broken."
> All I do is look around for them, and behold, just look in
>
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/
>
> for the 2.6.11.6-bk snapshots.
This madness ensues each time Linus pulls GregKH's tree
into his. The script stops snapshotting against Linus'
tree, and opts to produce -bk's against GregKH's for
some bizarre reason.
Dave
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use Getopt::Std;
my (%opts, $mode, $s);
getopts('me', \%opts);
if ($opts{m}) {
$mode = 0;
} elsif ($opts{e}) {
$mode = 1;
} else {
die "usage: get-version.pl [-e | -m]\n";
}
$s = <>;
chomp $s;
my @line = split(/\./, $s);
my ($kmicro, $kextra);
if ($#line == 3) {
$kmicro = $line[2];
$kextra = "." . $line[3];
} else {
my @more = split(/-/, $line[2]);
if ($#more == 1) {
$kmicro = $more[0];
$kextra = "-" . $more[1];
} elsif (($#more == 0) && ($line[2] =~ /\d+/)) {
$kmicro = $more[0];
$kextra = "";
} else {
die "invalid extraversion parse";
}
}
if ($mode) {
$s = $kextra;
} else {
$s = $kmicro;
}
printf("%s\n", $s) unless ($s eq "");
exit(0);
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:17:42PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >with the requirement (for me) that I not be required to use BK?
> >I'll munge scripts or whatever...
> >but I guess that I'll also need a kernel.org account to do that.
>
> Should hopefully just be changing get-version.pl ...
hmm, it's going to go a bit nutso when it finds the most
recent TAG: is from the bk pull of 2.6.11.x into Linus tree.
So it generates -bk from /that/ instead of 2.6.12.
Could hack around it by checking the cset is from Linus I suppose ?
> Jeff, still catching up from trip+engagement
Congrats!
Dave
Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:17:42PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > >with the requirement (for me) that I not be required to use BK?
> > >I'll munge scripts or whatever...
> > >but I guess that I'll also need a kernel.org account to do that.
> >
> > Should hopefully just be changing get-version.pl ...
>
> hmm, it's going to go a bit nutso when it finds the most
> recent TAG: is from the bk pull of 2.6.11.x into Linus tree.
> So it generates -bk from /that/ instead of 2.6.12.
Correct (your description, not the code...), that is the problem that
causes snapshots to go bonkers.
> Could hack around it by checking the cset is from Linus I suppose ?
Probably best just to parse the Makefile, since TAG is no longer a valid
indicator.
> > Jeff, still catching up from trip+engagement
>
> Congrats!
Thanks!
Jeff
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:17:42PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Should hopefully just be changing get-version.pl ...
Nah, this simple patch to snapshot fixes it.
I've also generated the 2.6.12-rc1-bk3 snapshot and fixed up the
directory on kernel.org so it should now work properly if you apply the
patch.
Sorry about this issue, I never thought that tags in the bk tree would
cause such a mess...
thanks,
greg k-h
--------------
--- snapshot.orig 2005-03-30 21:44:16.869023655 -0800
+++ snapshot 2005-03-30 21:45:30.410153125 -0800
@@ -39,9 +39,12 @@
#
# discover most recent kernel version
#
-tmptagver=`bk changes | grep 'TAG: v' | head -1 | awk '{print $2}'`
-kmicro=`echo $tmptagver | $getver -m`
-kextra=`echo $tmptagver | $getver -e`
+bk get -q Makefile
+for TAG in SUBLEVEL EXTRAVERSION ; do
+ eval `sed -ne "/^$TAG/s/ //gp" Makefile`
+done
+kmicro="$SUBLEVEL"
+kextra="$EXTRAVERSION"
kversion="$kmajor.$kminor.$kmicro$kextra"
snapdir="$snapbase" # /$kversion
echo "found kernel version $kversion" >> $log
Greg KH schrieb:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:17:42PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>Should hopefully just be changing get-version.pl ...
>
>
> Nah, this simple patch to snapshot fixes it.
>
> I've also generated the 2.6.12-rc1-bk3 snapshot and fixed up the
> directory on kernel.org so it should now work properly if you apply the
> patch.
Hi, have the incremental patches been fixes as well? Last is 2.6.11-bk9 to bk10...
--
Prakash Punnoor
formerly known as Prakash K. Cheemplavam
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:42:58PM +0200, Prakash Punnoor wrote:
> Greg KH schrieb:
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:17:42PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> >>Should hopefully just be changing get-version.pl ...
> >
> >
> > Nah, this simple patch to snapshot fixes it.
> >
> > I've also generated the 2.6.12-rc1-bk3 snapshot and fixed up the
> > directory on kernel.org so it should now work properly if you apply the
> > patch.
>
> Hi, have the incremental patches been fixes as well? Last is 2.6.11-bk9 to bk10...
incrementals never worked for the -rc bk snapshots, as I don't think
they were turned on (they are automatically generated with some other
script somewhere...)
I just make them myself when I need them, I have a script around here
for that...
bah, drowning in helper scripts, the story of a programmer's life.
greg k-h