On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:22, Ian Duggan wrote: > > Why does the patch require 2.4.13-ac7? > > > > Why would you want to support an ancient pre-release of the kernel > > anyway? > > > > Why doesn't it apply against 2.4.13? > > It doesn't just have patches for 2.4.13-ac. I have patches for most of > the kernels between 2.4.4 and 2.4.18, as well as 2.5.1 through 2.5.6 in > there.
In my kernel patch packages I dumped support for <=2.4.9 when it was discovered to have security holes. Then 2.4.10 had Ext2/Lilo issues so I dumped support for it. Now for my 2.4-lsm package I only support 2.4.16 and above (actually the 2.4.16 patch should work from about 2.4.12 as well - but I haven't tested that). > I did the version using -YYYYMMDD as well, to make the upgrading happen > correctly. That's an allowable way to do it, right? I didn't want to > version it as -2.5.6, since people might not realize it had the other > patches in it as well. I think it's best to version it with the release date. -- If you send email to me or to a mailing list that I use which has >4 lines of legalistic junk at the end then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I wish with the message and all other messages from your domain, by posting the message you agree that your long legalistic sig is void.
