Hi Albert.
Since you appear to be determined to ignore reason and stick to your
misguided guns I'll leave you to destroy all the good work that has
gone into the Linux kernel's documentation and make it something even
Bill Gates would be proud of. However, I'll stick to documentation
that
Riley Williams writes:
> Hi Albert.
The rule should be like this:
List the lowest version number required to get
2.2.xx-level features while running a 2.4.xx kernel.
>>> Replace that "a 2.2.xx" with "my current" and remove all
>>> restrictions on what the current
Riley Williams writes:
Hi Albert.
The rule should be like this:
List the lowest version number required to get
2.2.xx-level features while running a 2.4.xx kernel.
Replace that "a 2.2.xx" with "my current" and remove all
restrictions on what the current kernel is, and that becomes
Hi Albert.
Since you appear to be determined to ignore reason and stick to your
misguided guns I'll leave you to destroy all the good work that has
gone into the Linux kernel's documentation and make it something even
Bill Gates would be proud of. However, I'll stick to documentation
that
Hi Albert.
>>> The rule should be like this:
>>>
>>>List the lowest version number required to get
>>>2.2.xx-level features while running a 2.4.xx kernel.
>> That's a meaningless definition, and can only be taken as such. What
>> use would such a list be to somebody wishing (like
Hi Albert.
The rule should be like this:
List the lowest version number required to get
2.2.xx-level features while running a 2.4.xx kernel.
That's a meaningless definition, and can only be taken as such. What
use would such a list be to somebody wishing (like I recently was)
Riley Williams writes:
>> The rule should be like this:
>>
>> List the lowest version number required to get
>> 2.2.xx-level features while running a 2.4.xx kernel.
>
> That's a meaningless definition, and can only be taken as such. What
> use would such a list be to somebody wishing
Hi Albert.
>> +o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
> Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too old,
>>> Exactly why? Mere missing features don't make for a required
>>> upgrade. Version number inflation should be resisted.
>> These days you can mount
Hi Andries.
>> {Shrug} Thinking isn't sufficient - check your facts.
> Poor Riley,
>
> Probably I should not answer, I think you know all the facts
> already. But just to be sure:
> (i) There are two different packages, kbd and a forked version,
> console-tools. Both contain roughly the
> If the old mount can still do what it used to do,
> then "mount" need not be listed at all.
Well, I started saying that the mount line should be deleted,
so we somewhat agree.
> If I run the mount command from Red Hat 6.2, using it
> as intended for a 2.2.xx kernel, doesn't everything work?
If the old mount can still do what it used to do,
then "mount" need not be listed at all.
Well, I started saying that the mount line should be deleted,
so we somewhat agree.
If I run the mount command from Red Hat 6.2, using it
as intended for a 2.2.xx kernel, doesn't everything work?
Hi Andries.
{Shrug} Thinking isn't sufficient - check your facts.
Poor Riley,
Probably I should not answer, I think you know all the facts
already. But just to be sure:
(i) There are two different packages, kbd and a forked version,
console-tools. Both contain roughly the same
Hi Albert.
+o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too old,
Exactly why? Mere missing features don't make for a required
upgrade. Version number inflation should be resisted.
These days you can mount several
Andries.Brouwer writes:
>> From: "Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +o Console Tools # 0.3.3# loadkeys -V
> +o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
Concerning mount: (i) the version
Hi Andries.
> Neither am I - but, according to comments from RedHat a while back,
> they repackage mount separately because they provide a NEWER version
> of mount than is in the util-linux package. This will ALSO result in
> `mount --version` giving the wrong answer...
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> From: Riley Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> {Shrug} Please explain why I was unable to get ver_linux to report a
>
> % ./loadkeys -h 2>&1 | head -1
> loadkeys version 1.06
>
> Maybe nothing has changed here the past eight years. It just works.
> Perhaps
From: Riley Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Neither am I - but, according to comments from RedHat a while back,
they repackage mount separately because they provide a NEWER version
of mount than is in the util-linux package. This will ALSO result in
`mount --version` giving the
Hi Andries.
> [Yes, I wrote, replying to your mail, just because I happened to
> notice the incorrect or debatable lines in your patch. Let me cc
> the Changes maintainer - maybe Chris Ricker.]
-o util-linux 2.10o # fdformat --version
+o util-linux
Hi Andries.
[Yes, I wrote, replying to your mail, just because I happened to
notice the incorrect or debatable lines in your patch. Let me cc
the Changes maintainer - maybe Chris Ricker.]
-o util-linux 2.10o # fdformat --version
+o util-linux #
From: Riley Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Neither am I - but, according to comments from RedHat a while back,
they repackage mount separately because they provide a NEWER version
of mount than is in the util-linux package. This will ALSO result in
`mount --version` giving the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Riley Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{Shrug} Please explain why I was unable to get ver_linux to report a
% ./loadkeys -h 21 | head -1
loadkeys version 1.06
Maybe nothing has changed here the past eight years. It just works.
Perhaps you tried some
Hi Andries.
Neither am I - but, according to comments from RedHat a while back,
they repackage mount separately because they provide a NEWER version
of mount than is in the util-linux package. This will ALSO result in
`mount --version` giving the wrong answer...
There
Andries.Brouwer writes:
From: "Albert D. Cahalan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+o Console Tools # 0.3.3# loadkeys -V
+o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too old,
Exactly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>> +o Console Tools # 0.3.3# loadkeys -V
> >>> +o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
> >>
> >> Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too old,
> On the
From: "Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> +o Console Tools # 0.3.3# loadkeys -V
>>> +o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
>>
>> Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+o Console Tools # 0.3.3# loadkeys -V
+o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too old,
On the other hand, there
Alexander Viro writes:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> +o Console Tools # 0.3.3# loadkeys -V
>>> +o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
>>
>> Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too old,
Exactly why? Mere missing features don't
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 08:29:53PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There is no other source. Some people like to repack but that
> has no influence on versions.
I believe that RedHat don't build mount and util-linux from the same tree.
Maybe they do internally, but when you look at the RPMs,
From: Riley Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Yes, I wrote, replying to your mail, just because I happened
to notice the incorrect or debatable lines in your patch.
Let me cc the Changes maintainer - maybe Chris Ricker.]
>> -o util-linux 2.10o # fdformat
Hi Andries.
>> -o util-linux 2.10o # fdformat --version
>> +o util-linux # 2.10o# fdformat --version
> Looking at fdformat to get the util-linux version is perhaps not
> the most reliable way - some people have fdformat from fd-utils
> or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Looking at fdformat to get the util-linux version is perhaps
>not the most reliable way - some people have fdformat from fd-utils or so.
>Using mount --version would be better - I am not aware of any
>other mount distribution.
Bad idea. RedHat has mount and util-linux
> Many systems have mount (and bsdutils) separated from util-linux
> as a binary package. Built from the same source, indeed, but...
I hope that this habit is dying. Long ago that was
reasonable, but these days (years) it only causes extra work.
>> Concerning Console Tools: maybe kbd-1.05 is
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > +o Console Tools # 0.3.3# loadkeys -V
> > +o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
>
> Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too old,
> (ii) mount is in util-linux. Conclusion: the mount line
> should
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 10:39:53AM +, Riley Williams wrote:
> -o util-linux 2.10o # fdformat --version
> +o util-linux # 2.10o# fdformat --version
Looking at fdformat to get the util-linux version is perhaps
not the most reliable way - some
Hi all.
As a result of private email correspondance I have recently received, I
became aware that the current system of identifying the versions of the
various subsystems required to support any particular kernel version is
inadequate, and decided to do something about it. The enclosed patch is
Hi all.
As a result of private email correspondance I have recently received, I
became aware that the current system of identifying the versions of the
various subsystems required to support any particular kernel version is
inadequate, and decided to do something about it. The enclosed patch is
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+o Console Tools # 0.3.3# loadkeys -V
+o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too old,
(ii) mount is in util-linux. Conclusion: the mount line
should be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Looking at fdformat to get the util-linux version is perhaps
not the most reliable way - some people have fdformat from fd-utils or so.
Using mount --version would be better - I am not aware of any
other mount distribution.
Bad idea. RedHat has mount and util-linux in
From: Riley Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Yes, I wrote, replying to your mail, just because I happened
to notice the incorrect or debatable lines in your patch.
Let me cc the Changes maintainer - maybe Chris Ricker.]
-o util-linux 2.10o # fdformat
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 08:29:53PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no other source. Some people like to repack but that
has no influence on versions.
I believe that RedHat don't build mount and util-linux from the same tree.
Maybe they do internally, but when you look at the RPMs,
Alexander Viro writes:
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+o Console Tools # 0.3.3# loadkeys -V
+o Mount # 2.10e# mount --version
Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too old,
Exactly why? Mere missing features don't make for a
41 matches
Mail list logo
