Is there going to be an "official" patch from 2.4.15 to 2.5.0? I'd rather not
ftp the whole kernel tarball over a modem connection, and I don't have the disk
space on my laptop to keep both the complete 2.4 and 2.5 source at the same time
anyway.
On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:52, [email protected] wrote:
> Is there going to be an "official" patch from 2.4.15 to 2.5.0? I'd rather
> not ftp the whole kernel tarball over a modem connection, and I don't have
> the disk space on my laptop to keep both the complete 2.4 and 2.5 source at
> the same time anyway.
2.4.15 is the same as 2.5.0
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Em Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 12:52:07AM -0600, [email protected] escreveu:
> Is there going to be an "official" patch from 2.4.15 to 2.5.0? I'd
> rather not ftp the whole kernel tarball over a modem connection, and I
> don't have the disk space on my laptop to keep both the complete 2.4 and
> 2.5 source at the same time anyway.
Here it is:
------------------------------------- 8< ----------------------------
--- linux/Makefile.orig Sun Nov 25 05:21:13 2001
+++ linux/Makefile Sun Nov 25 05:21:23 2001
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
VERSION = 2
-PATCHLEVEL = 4
-SUBLEVEL = 15
-EXTRAVERSION =-greased-turkey
+PATCHLEVEL = 5
+SUBLEVEL = 0
+EXTRAVERSION =
KERNELRELEASE=$(VERSION).$(PATCHLEVEL).$(SUBLEVEL)$(EXTRAVERSION)
------------------------------------- 8< ----------------------------
RTFM http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.5/README
- Arnaldo
On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 05:14:53PM +1000, James Davies wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:52, [email protected] wrote:
> > Is there going to be an "official" patch from 2.4.15 to 2.5.0? I'd rather
> > not ftp the whole kernel tarball over a modem connection, and I don't have
> > the disk space on my laptop to keep both the complete 2.4 and 2.5 source at
> > the same time anyway.
>
> 2.4.15 is the same as 2.5.0
I think he is concerned about the _official_ 2.4.15 and the _official_ 2.5.0,
because, subsequent patches for 2.5.0 will not _cleanly_ apply on 2.4.15 tree
(although fixing them should be extremely trivial).
Can somebody confirm that the difference is only the version numbers in the
Makefile, and no other changes in Documentation/ etc?
Cheers,
Anuradha
--
Debian GNU/Linux (kernel 2.4.13)
The human animal differs from the lesser primates in his passion for
lists of "Ten Best".
-- H. Allen Smith
Em Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 01:31:57PM +0600, Anuradha Ratnaweera escreveu:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 05:14:53PM +1000, James Davies wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:52, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Is there going to be an "official" patch from 2.4.15 to 2.5.0? I'd rather
> > > not ftp the whole kernel tarball over a modem connection, and I don't have
> > > the disk space on my laptop to keep both the complete 2.4 and 2.5 source at
> > > the same time anyway.
> >
> > 2.4.15 is the same as 2.5.0
>
> I think he is concerned about the _official_ 2.4.15 and the _official_ 2.5.0,
> because, subsequent patches for 2.5.0 will not _cleanly_ apply on 2.4.15 tree
> (although fixing them should be extremely trivial).
>
> Can somebody confirm that the difference is only the version numbers in the
> Makefile, and no other changes in Documentation/ etc?
hey, the _oficial_ word from Linus is that it had changed only the version:
[acme@brinquedo b]$ diff -uNr 2.4.15 2.5.0
diff -uNr 2.4.15/Makefile 2.5.0/Makefile
--- 2.4.15/Makefile Thu Nov 22 17:22:58 2001
+++ 2.5.0/Makefile Fri Nov 23 04:23:44 2001
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
VERSION = 2
-PATCHLEVEL = 4
-SUBLEVEL = 15
-EXTRAVERSION =-greased-turkey
+PATCHLEVEL = 5
+SUBLEVEL = 0
+EXTRAVERSION =
KERNELRELEASE=$(VERSION).$(PATCHLEVEL).$(SUBLEVEL)$(EXTRAVERSION)
[acme@brinquedo b]$
See?
- Arnaldo
Thanks. I had hoped the version number was the only change, but wanted to be
sure. I'll be keeping just one source tree for both 2.4.x and 2.5.x and
switching between the versions by applying and reversing patches as needed, so
it's important that my copy of the source stay *exactly* in sync with Linus'
copy (otherwise I've have just altered the version in the Makefile myself).
With the help of your patch I've just built both 2.4.16-pre1 and 2.5.1-pre1 from
the same 2.4.15 source, which is what I wanted.
Wayne
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]> on 11/25/2001 01:53:40 AM
To: Anuradha Ratnaweera <[email protected]>
cc: James Davies <[email protected]>, Wayne
Brown/Corporate/Altec@Altec, lkml <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.5.0
Em Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 01:31:57PM +0600, Anuradha Ratnaweera escreveu:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 05:14:53PM +1000, James Davies wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 16:52, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Is there going to be an "official" patch from 2.4.15 to 2.5.0? I'd rather
> > > not ftp the whole kernel tarball over a modem connection, and I don't have
> > > the disk space on my laptop to keep both the complete 2.4 and 2.5 source
at
> > > the same time anyway.
> >
> > 2.4.15 is the same as 2.5.0
>
> I think he is concerned about the _official_ 2.4.15 and the _official_ 2.5.0,
> because, subsequent patches for 2.5.0 will not _cleanly_ apply on 2.4.15 tree
> (although fixing them should be extremely trivial).
>
> Can somebody confirm that the difference is only the version numbers in the
> Makefile, and no other changes in Documentation/ etc?
hey, the _oficial_ word from Linus is that it had changed only the version:
[acme@brinquedo b]$ diff -uNr 2.4.15 2.5.0
diff -uNr 2.4.15/Makefile 2.5.0/Makefile
--- 2.4.15/Makefile Thu Nov 22 17:22:58 2001
+++ 2.5.0/Makefile Fri Nov 23 04:23:44 2001
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
VERSION = 2
-PATCHLEVEL = 4
-SUBLEVEL = 15
-EXTRAVERSION =-greased-turkey
+PATCHLEVEL = 5
+SUBLEVEL = 0
+EXTRAVERSION =
KERNELRELEASE=$(VERSION).$(PATCHLEVEL).$(SUBLEVEL)$(EXTRAVERSION)
[acme@brinquedo b]$
See?
- Arnaldo
Em Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 09:16:17AM -0600, [email protected] escreveu:
>
>
> Thanks. I had hoped the version number was the only change, but wanted to be
> sure. I'll be keeping just one source tree for both 2.4.x and 2.5.x and
> switching between the versions by applying and reversing patches as needed, so
> it's important that my copy of the source stay *exactly* in sync with Linus'
But keep in mind that this is only the fork point, from now on more and
more things will diverge and patches for one will not necessarily apply to
both trees.
> copy (otherwise I've have just altered the version in the Makefile myself).
> With the help of your patch I've just built both 2.4.16-pre1 and 2.5.1-pre1 from
> the same 2.4.15 source, which is what I wanted.
Yes, I realize that. When switching from one tree to another I reverse the
patches back to the fork point (using patch -R) and then apply the appropriate
patches for the tree I want. That's the method I've used for a long time for
keeping up with both Linus' -preX kernels and Alan's -acX kernels with only a
single source tree. (After 2.5 has been out for awhile I'll just drop 2.4
altogether and then it won't be an issue.)
Wayne
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]> on 11/25/2001 10:51:28 AM
To: Wayne Brown/Corporate/Altec@Altec
cc: lkml <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.5.0
Em Sun, Nov 25, 2001 at 09:16:17AM -0600, [email protected] escreveu:
>
>
> Thanks. I had hoped the version number was the only change, but wanted to be
> sure. I'll be keeping just one source tree for both 2.4.x and 2.5.x and
> switching between the versions by applying and reversing patches as needed, so
> it's important that my copy of the source stay *exactly* in sync with Linus'
But keep in mind that this is only the fork point, from now on more and
more things will diverge and patches for one will not necessarily apply to
both trees.
> copy (otherwise I've have just altered the version in the Makefile myself).
> With the help of your patch I've just built both 2.4.16-pre1 and 2.5.1-pre1
from
> the same 2.4.15 source, which is what I wanted.