FYI - The full tarball already has the missing patch...
So, I think, it's only patch-2.4.18 that has the problem...
> FYI - The full tarball already has the missing patch...
> So, I think, it's only patch-2.4.18 that has the problem...
Argh thats the worst possible case. That means you can't do a single correct
2.4.18- patch
If so Marcelo can you put up 2.4.18-fixed patch and a borked-fixed diff ?
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
> If so Marcelo can you put up 2.4.18-fixed patch and a borked-fixed diff ?
That would break hpa's incremental diff patches.
If somebody needs 2.4.18 + fix, they can just run 2.4.18-rc4.
regards,
Rik
--
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
-- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
> > FYI - The full tarball already has the missing patch...
> > So, I think, it's only patch-2.4.18 that has the problem...
>
> Argh thats the worst possible case. That means you can't do a single correct
> 2.4.18- patch
>
> If so Marcelo can you put up 2.4.18-fixed patch and a borked-fixed diff ?
If this is the case... which "version" of 2.4.18 does 2.4.19-pre1 patch
from?
I'm guessing it patches you from the "patched-from-2.4.17" release of
2.4.18? (if that makes sense)
Beezly
> > If so Marcelo can you put up 2.4.18-fixed patch and a borked-fixed diff ?
>
> That would break hpa's incremental diff patches.
> If somebody needs 2.4.18 + fix, they can just run 2.4.18-rc4.
That isnt the problem. Is 2.4.19-pre1 a patch versus the 2.4.18 tarball
or the 2.4.18 patch ? Continue ad infinitum through every 2.4 release,
add hundreds of confused emails about them to the kernel list and it ceases
to look a smart idea to leave the two not matching
Alan
Followup to: <[email protected]>
By author: Rik van Riel <[email protected]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > If so Marcelo can you put up 2.4.18-fixed patch and a borked-fixed diff ?
> That would break hpa's incremental diff patches.
> If somebody needs 2.4.18 + fix, they can just run 2.4.18-rc4.
>
Since the tarball apparently is OK and it's only the patch that's
different, just re-create the patch, put it in the proper place, and
make sure the file date on the patch is different; the incremental
diff will be regenerated to match.
-hpa
--
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <[email protected]>
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 09:49:58PM +0000, Chris Funderburg wrote:
>
> FYI - The full tarball already has the missing patch...
>
> So, I think, it's only patch-2.4.18 that has the problem...
Uh, no, it doesn't. Using linux-2.4.18.tar.bz2 dated Feb 25, 2002 11:40am:
diff -urN linux-2.4.18-rc4/Makefile linux-2.4.18/Makefile
--- linux-2.4.18-rc4/Makefile Mon Feb 25 14:35:52 2002
+++ linux-2.4.18/Makefile Mon Feb 25 11:37:52 2002
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 4
SUBLEVEL = 18
-EXTRAVERSION = -rc4
+EXTRAVERSION =
KERNELRELEASE=$(VERSION).$(PATCHLEVEL).$(SUBLEVEL)$(EXTRAVERSION)
diff -urN linux-2.4.18-rc4/fs/binfmt_elf.c linux-2.4.18/fs/binfmt_elf.c
--- linux-2.4.18-rc4/fs/binfmt_elf.c Mon Feb 25 14:35:55 2002
+++ linux-2.4.18/fs/binfmt_elf.c Mon Feb 25 11:38:08 2002
@@ -564,9 +564,6 @@
// printk(KERN_WARNING "ELF: Ambiguous type, using
ELF\n");
interpreter_type = INTERPRETER_ELF;
}
- } else {
- /* Executables without an interpreter also need a
personality */
- SET_PERSONALITY(elf_ex, ibcs2_interpreter);
}
/* OK, we are done with that, now set up the arg stuff,
On Mon, Feb 25, 2002 at 10:37:20PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > FYI - The full tarball already has the missing patch...
> > So, I think, it's only patch-2.4.18 that has the problem...
>
> Argh thats the worst possible case. That means you can't do a single correct
> 2.4.18- patch
>
> If so Marcelo can you put up 2.4.18-fixed patch and a borked-fixed diff ?
cdub_ and I just checked: the 18-final tarball, patch, and incr are all
missing the fix in fs/binfmt_elf.c
--
Dan Chen [email protected]
GPG key: http://www.unc.edu/~crimsun/pubkey.gpg.asc
> > 2.4.18- patch=20
> >=20
> > If so Marcelo can you put up 2.4.18-fixed patch and a borked-fixed diff ?
>
> cdub_ and I just checked: the 18-final tarball, patch, and incr are all
> missing the fix in fs/binfmt_elf.c
Cool - in which case its a non problem.
In article <[email protected]> you wrote:
> So, I think, it's only patch-2.4.18 that has the problem...
Which is a pretty serious problem. Because ppl using patches hav different
source from ppl using tarball. This will get a lot of confusion for the 2.4.19
patch. I suggest to fix the 2.4.18 patch, even it this is not the best method
to keep unique version numbers.
Greetings
Bernd