[gentoo-dev] kernel 2.6.8.1 versioning change

[Jason Cooper <gentoo@lakedaemon.net>]

Well, as per the thread on lkml, it looks like 2.6.8 was released with a
nasty bug in NFS write support.  So Linus took this opportunity to try
out the new version scheme and released 2.6.8.1, which fixes the NFS
problem.  

#### Quoting Linus ####

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>                                                                                                                                          
> Cane we make this 2.6.9 to avoid breaking all kinds of scripts
> expecting                                                                 
> three-digit kernel versions?                                                                                                             

Well, we've been discussing the 2.6.x.y format for a while, so I see
this
as an opportunity to actually do it... Will it break automated scripts?
Maybe. But on the other hand, we'll never even find out unless we try it
some time.

                Linus

#### End quote ####

So i copied d-s-2.6.8.ebuild to my overlay and named it
d-s-2.6.8.1.ebuild.

# ebuild development-sources-2.6.8.1.ebuild digest 

successfully downloaded the kernel tarball, then it gave the following
error:

### begin error ###
Resolving www.de.kernel.org... 80.252.110.38, 129.143.116.10
Connecting to www.de.kernel.org[80.252.110.38]:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 35,628,066 [application/x-tar]

100%[====================================>] 35,628,066   385.59K/s
ETA 00:00

11:10:58 (383.01 KB/s) - `/usr/portage/distfiles/linux-2.6.8.1.tar.bz2'
saved [35628066/35628066]

>>> Generating digest file...
<<< 
ebuild: this ebuild generated output during the depend phase (bad)

### end error ###

Looks like this is one of the 'scripts' Linus was talking about :-)

I looked at the ebuild (I've changed KEYWORDS in the past, but that's
about it).  There just isn't enough there to find something wrong.  Does
anyone have an idea how to fix this?  It looks like the new scheme is
going to be around a while...

tia,

Cooper.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list