From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13096 invoked by uid 1002); 23 Jul 2003 22:37:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 21216 invoked from network); 23 Jul 2003 22:37:50 -0000 From: Chris Gianelloni To: Alvaro Figueroa Cabezas Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20030723082823.GP19204@fuerzag.ulatina.ac.cr> References: <20030723121603.11ab807e.frogger@gentoo.org> <1058987766.3579.14.camel@vertigo> <20030723074623.GO19204@fuerzag.ulatina.ac.cr> <200307231503.49761.spyderous@gentoo.org> <20030723082823.GP19204@fuerzag.ulatina.ac.cr> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1058999711.3578.24.camel@vertigo> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.3 Date: 23 Jul 2003 18:35:11 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Where to put prerelease vanilla kernels? X-Archives-Salt: 725c9599-d8b6-4936-80f9-28dc347559f8 X-Archives-Hash: b8ceb2499d353b8fb7dca001749ad6e4 Absolutely not. The policy is the correct method for numbering versions. Your original understanding of how the policy used versions, and how the kernel developers is incorrect. You could consider the 2.4.22_pre kernels as 2.4.21_p kernels... they are patches on top of 2.4.21 that will someday in the future become 2.4.22, therefore they're newer. The portage policy is exactly in line with this. On Wed, 2003-07-23 at 04:28, Alvaro Figueroa Cabezas wrote: > Ohh I see. Shouldn't the policy be changed to make it the way I > missunderstood it? I really don't see the why in the way it is. -- Chris Gianelloni Developer, Gentoo Linux -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list