Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:32:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:32:44 -0500 Received: from imladris.infradead.org ([194.205.184.45]:25868 "EHLO infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 16 Mar 2001 18:32:30 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:28:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Riley Williams To: cc: , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improved version reporting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Andries. > Neither am I - but, according to comments from RedHat a while back, > they repackage mount separately because they provide a NEWER version > of mount than is in the util-linux package. This will ALSO result in > `mount --version` giving the wrong answer... > There is no newer version. Why do RedHat claim there is then? > In ancient times I came with frequent releases of mount, at a time > when util-linux was released very infrequently. These years mount > is part of util-linux, and util-linux is released frequently. {Shrug} Persuade RedHat of that, not me - they're the ones who release it separately. Taken directly from RedHat's FTP site, I note that Red Hat 6.2 includes RPM's for both mount-2.10f-1.i386.rpm and util-linux-2.10f-7.i386.rpm which, whilst different releases of the same version, is sufficient to prove your argument false. I can't get into their 7.0 tree atm to check due to network congestion, so can't comment on that... > Unless one can guarantee that the util-linux and mount packages are > the SAME version, mount can't be guaranteed to report the version of > the util-linux package installed. RedHat provide a NEWER version of > mount to util-linux so that guarantee doesnae exist. > I do not think they do. {Shrug} Thinking isn't sufficient - check your facts. > > You are mistaken, as is proved by the reports that contain a kbd > > line: a grep on linux-kernel for this Februari shows people with > > Kbd 0.96, 0.99 and 1.02. > > {Shrug} Please explain why I was unable to get ver_linux to report a > When other people can and you cannot, why should I explain your failure? > Let me just check. A version from 1993: > % ./loadkeys -h 2>&1 | head -1 > loadkeys version 0.81 > > A version from 2001: > > % ./loadkeys -h 2>&1 | head -1 > loadkeys version 1.06 > Maybe nothing has changed here the past eight years. It just works. > Perhaps you tried some modified version. I tried the version that came as part of Red Hat 6.2 as installed unmodified on the system I'm using. According to the rpm command, I see... Q> $ rpm -qf `which loadkeys` Q> console-tools-19990829-10 Q> $ I've now tried that on FOUR different systems running Red Hat 6.2, the last of them a fresh install direct from genuine RH 6.2 CD's with NO changes since, and all four report the same and do exactly the same to the command in ver_linux so I have to assume that the command in ver_linux is UNABLE to determine a version number with this release of Linux. Best wishes from Riley. - 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/