In article ,
Michael van Elst wrote:
>campbell+netbsd-tech-k...@mumble.net (Taylor R Campbell) writes:
>
>>We appear to have revived the old alphanumeric versioning scheme,
>>according to file(1)! Someone needs to teach file(1) that this is
>>9.99.100, not 9.99A(.0).
>
>Index:
> However, I wonder why this kind of info is embedded in ELF files, what
> point does that have? Maybe it would be better to have them just say
> x.99 (and forget the kernel ABI bump number) ?
i would rather keep the info. i use it as a quick check of
whether i reinstalled recently or not.
k...@munnari.oz.au (Robert Elz) writes:
>The way you have it coded, I suspect that 9.1 binaries will appear to
>be 9.1.0 instead (the ver_patch data is always appended for ver_maj >= 9).
True. Here is a patch that ignores a zero patch level.
Index: external/bsd/file/dist/src/readelf.c
Date:Wed, 21 Sep 2022 19:33:47 - (UTC)
From:mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst)
Message-ID:
| - if (ver_rel == 0 && ver_patch != 0) {
| + if (ver_maj >= 9) {
I'd suggest instead
if (ver_min == 99) {
While this issue
campbell+netbsd-tech-k...@mumble.net (Taylor R Campbell) writes:
>We appear to have revived the old alphanumeric versioning scheme,
>according to file(1)! Someone needs to teach file(1) that this is
>9.99.100, not 9.99A(.0).
Index: external/bsd/file/dist/src/readelf.c
$ file ./netbsd
./netbsd: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), statically
linked, for NetBSD 9.99A, not stripped
We appear to have revived the old alphanumeric versioning scheme,
according to file(1)! Someone needs to teach file(1) that this is
9.99.100, not 9.99A(.0).
