> I'm evaluating it from the osabi (pkgsrc term) point of view. I'm
> targeting LLDB for 7.99.62+. If the kernel bump approach is reserved for
> loadable kernel modules, I will follow this in future changes.
it's about whether code is expected to work in that kernel
environment or not. it's not
Date:Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:24:34 +0800 (PHT)
From:Paul Goyette
Message-ID:
| In many cases, one might just "ride the previous bump"
Yes, I've seen that happen several times, but it would be
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017, Robert Elz wrote:
Date:Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:04:36 +0100
From:Martin Husemann
Message-ID: <20170224080436.gb1...@mail.duskware.de>
| (and we already had a bump just a few hours earlier).
It would indeed be useful if, when a
Date:Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:04:36 +0100
From:Martin Husemann
Message-ID: <20170224080436.gb1...@mail.duskware.de>
| (and we already had a bump just a few hours earlier).
It would indeed be useful if, when a change that requires a kernel version
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:57:36PM +0100, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> My bump was still legitimate as I changed size of amd64 and i386 struct
> lwp - I removed one MD field.
Yeah, that is all fine. I was just confused because the specific commit
did not seem to want a bump, and while numbers are