On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 15:19 +0100, Brice Goglin wrote: > Le 20/02/2011 15:01, Ben Hutchings a écrit : > > On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 13:52 +0100, Brice Goglin wrote: [...] > >> However, make kernelrelease returns 2.6.37 instead of 2.6.37-smp-amd64 > >> now, so it looks like we have another problem but I am not sure where. > >> > > Why do you even care what the version is? > > I can live without it. One case that I remember of is when you want to > check that the kernel headers match what's installed in /lib/modules. It > doesn't matter for Debian packages. But it matters when you build your > own kernel from a source dir whose version may increase while some old > /lib/modules/ still point to it.
Right. But that's the user's own stupid fault. :-) > make kernelrelease and /lib/modules/<version> matched in the past, and > they match when installing an upstream kernel manually. It'd be easier > if they match in Debian packages too. If it's not possible anymore, just > say it, I'll use something else :) There has been a change to the way version suffixes are handled which required us to create a new file at build time. But we don't copy that into the headers package. I'll fix that. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
