On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 01:58, Mark Sheppard wrote: > > Um.... I really, really don't want to work around that. It's a > > completely broken kernel version. What do you expect anything else > > that checks the kernel version string to do? > > Fair enough if you need to parse the whole thing, but from what you've > said it sounds like you don't have to: > > The code in ld.so is supposed to choose the copy of libc in /lib for > any kernel version less than 2.6.0 > > Maybe I'm missing something here, but couldn't you just check the > major and minor version numbers and totally ignore the revision number > (i.e. anything beyond the second ".")? Or if this is something that > changed half way through the 2.5 kernels then you could only check the > revision if major == 2 && minor == 5? No - we often have to check the revision number. It happens occasionally that there's a big problem in a particular revision and we have to set the minimum to higher than 2.4.x Daniel - Should I work up some hackery to maybe test to see if the revision number overflows the version checking magic? We could simply refuse to install in that case. Tks, Jeff Bailey -- I never know what to expect when you respond to my postings. No insult intended, you are merely a surprise :) - Carlos O'Donnell
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part