On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:43:43AM -0500, Jeff Bailey wrote: > 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.
Good idea. We handle the greater than three dot-separated components now; just check if any piece is >255. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
