From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31294 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2004 04:13:05 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 15 Aug 2004 04:13:05 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BwCOG-0003w9-Mh for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 15 Aug 2004 04:13:04 +0000 Received: (qmail 4448 invoked by uid 89); 15 Aug 2004 04:13:03 +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 32294 invoked from network); 15 Aug 2004 04:13:03 +0000 From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 13:16:03 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.82 References: <20040814152311.GB9503@lakedaemon.net> <20040814154641.GA389@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20040814154641.GA389@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200408151316.03920.jstubbs@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] kernel 2.6.8.1 versioning change X-Archives-Salt: e35b1aa6-eeff-4685-b96c-5d625b0a90ed X-Archives-Hash: 384b079bbffb09d0d3d5a27581cabf59 On Sunday 15 August 2004 00:46, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 11:23:11AM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > > 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. > > Well, if this isn't working properly, I'll just make a g-d-s release > against 2.6.8 with at least that single patch in it so that users can > work properly. > > If you note on lkml a number of people are saying they will be keeping a > -postX release tree just to keep the breakage at a minimum for now. > > Give me a day to get it out, there's a bunch of patches that need to be > rediffed... I haven't downloaded 2.6.8.1 yet (nor 2.6.8 actually ;) but depending on how the version is set in the Makefile, $KV may be incorrectly set. To be sure: ${KV} == ${VERSION}.${PATCHLEVEL}.${SUBLEVEL}${EXTRAVERSION} If SUBLEVEL is "8.1" then there is no problem here. Can somebody confirm if that is in fact the case? Regards, Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list