On 2004-01-08 (Thursday) at 10:00:23 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:43:43AM -0500, Jeff Bailey wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 01:58, Mark Sheppard wrote: > > > > > 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.
That sounds good, it would be far better to refuse to install rather than hose the system! Looks like I'll have to install a standard kernel (or roll my own with a sane EXTRA_VERSION). Thanks, Mark. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
