Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:10:08 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: jhb@freebsd.org Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, ru@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/config configvers.h mkmakefile.c src/sys/conf Makefile.alpha Makefile.amd64 Makefile.arm Makefile.i386 Makefile.ia64 Makefile.pc98 Makefile.powerpc Makefile.sparc64 files files.alpha files.amd64 files.i386 ... Message-ID: <20051128.101008.73745427.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <200511280853.35658.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20051127230109.GB73919@ip.net.ua> <20051127.163830.43671826.imp@bsdimp.com> <200511280853.35658.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <200511280853.35658.jhb@freebsd.org>
John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> writes:
: On Sunday 27 November 2005 06:38 pm, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > How does this look to you?
:
: What is the point of the minor version number then if it is never checked? I
: think we just should not do bumps for changes to config that allow old files
: to still work. IOW, the most recent bump should simply be reverted. In
: practice I don't think many folks other than developers ever end up with a
: config that is out of date with the kernel sources.
The minor numbers are checked.
The idea is that if the kernel says you need X.Y to build it, then the
config binary must be version X.Z, where Z >= Y. That's what my patch
implements.
Upon sober reflection, to answer Ruslan's issue, I think that the
100's thing might be a bad idea after all. I'll update my patch.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051128.101008.73745427.imp>