On 02/02/16 06:23, Björn Gerhart wrote: >> Am 21.01.2016 um 17:27 schrieb Björn Gerhart <gerh...@posteo.de>: >> >>> Am 18.01.2016 um 20:17 schrieb Phil Perry <p...@elrepo.org>: >>> >>> The elrepo standard where a module is backported from an upstream kernel >>> is the use any internal module versioning if present or version 0.0 as >>> in this case if no versioning information is provided. Thus the version >>> will never indicate the kernel it is backported from. The changelog >>> should always say which kernel the module was backported from, in this >>> case kernel-4.1.15, so that's where users should look for that information. >>> >>> So this module will likely progress as 0.0-1, 0.0-2, 0.0-3 etc for each >>> new release. >>> >>> The nct6775 example you refer to is slightly different as it is not >>> backported from the upstream kernel but is maintained out of the kernel >>> tree in a separate git repository, thus we use the git date notation to >>> indicate the date the source code was pulled from the git tree. >>> >>> Hope that makes sense >>> >> Yes it does, sounds good. Thanks for explaining. >> >>> If you file a bug with Red Hat I'd appreciate if you could post a link >>> here so I may follow it. If we can get native support added to the RHEL >>> kernel then we can deprecate our kmod package. >>> >> Ok, opened an issue on Red Hat’s Bugzilla - although it’s a kind of change >> request and not a real bug: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300200 >> I’ll keep an eye on it and inform the list once it gets fixed. >> > Last Thursday Red Hat has closed the issue with resolution: NOTABUG. The > related comment is: Intel Braswell (6,76) is not currently supported on RHEL7. > > Best - Björn >
Yes, I saw. Thanks anyway for trying. _______________________________________________ elrepo mailing list elrepo@lists.elrepo.org http://lists.elrepo.org/mailman/listinfo/elrepo
