On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 20:45, Phil Blundell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 20:18 +0200, Anders Darander wrote: >> Return 2.X as major version for kernels 2.X, and return >> X for kernels X.Y (X>=3). > > I'm not quite sure I understand what this particular logic is useful > for. If we're removing 2.4 support (which I'm fairly relaxed about) > then it seems as though this whole "kernel_majorversion" thing can and > should just go away.
If we should remove the kernel_majorversion, we'll have to double check that this isn't used somewhere else. If it isn't, I'm all in favor of removing it. > Or, alternatively, perhaps it should be mapped into a more abstract kind > of "kernel epoch" thing which treats 2.6 and 3.0 as basically the same. If we keep the kernel_majorversion, we'll need to have something similar to this, as the major version up to 2.6 was determined by X.Y. From 3.0, only the first digit represents the major number; while the second digit (0 in 3.0) is equal to x in 2.6.x. Thus, the function to determine the major version has to return either 2.6 or 3. Regards, Anders _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
