On 31.05.2011 02:21, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 11:01 +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
On 30.05.2011 10:54, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
And as a side note from Colin Watson:
"so regarding 3.0; the kernel team knows that 3.0.0< 3.0 as far as dpkg is
concerned, right? we'll need to be careful when uploading the RCs ..."
"you can use 3.0~3.0.0-<whatever> or similar..."
The changelog for 3.0-rc1:
.. except there are various scripts that really know that there are
three numbers, so it calls itself "3.0.0-rc1".
Hopefully by the time the final 3.0 is out, we'll have that extra
zero all figured out.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds<firstname.lastname@example.org>
If there's something you need w.r.t. the "extra zero", I'd say now is
the time to speak up
I guess the "interesting" part is how stable/longterm will fit in. Will those
take up the free SUBLEVEL or still put the additional digit into EXTRAVERSION?
And will they start with 0 or 1. I wished I had some voices telling.
Stable updates are intended to use the third component, starting with a
value of 1. So if you convert "3.0" to "3.0.0" there should still be no
ambiguity with later stable updates.
Ok, so 1 it will be and I assume "to use the third component" means those will
increment SUBLEVEL. Thanks.
It might be less problematic once settled. It seemed to me atm the kernel
scripts can get into issues with a 3.0 and so 3.0.0 is used but it might get
dropped later. Which could cause package version oddness with having 3.0.0 before.
kernel-team mailing list