[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] Putting the date back into utsname::version



On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 11:30 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:34:28AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > alt: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT 2023-02-21 Debian 9.99~rc99-9~experimental.9   [62]
> > alt: #1 SMP PREEMPT RT Debian 9.99~rc99-9~experimental.9 (2023-02-21) [64]
> 
> This increases the distance between two versions to maybe 2 or 3 bytes.
> 
> > Would anyone like to argue in favour of any particular alternative?
> 
> We can remove the useless information, aka the build couter that is
> always 1 in our builds and some of the flags like SMP. Then we've got
> enough space.

I've seen scripts out there that parse the flags (e.g.
<http://www.alsa-project.org/alsa-info.sh>).  And there are probably
others checking for SMP to make sure they didn't accidentally install a
UP kernel on a new machine.  Even applications might check: a real-time
application could warn at startup if it's not running on a real-time
kernel.

So I think the flags have to stay.  And depending on how strictly they
are parsed, the build counter may also be needed.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Make three consecutive correct guesses and you will be considered an expert.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: