On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 09:36:32AM +0200, Klaus Knopper wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 03:24:20AM -0400, Josef Sipek wrote: > > Starting with this release, the version number will consist of only a major > > and a minor number. A minor release will be made for every kernel version. > > The "stable" series of kernels (those with 4 version numbers, e.g., > > 2.6.16.20) should not change any interfaces that Unionfs relies on and > > therefore the release intended for the original version of the base kernel > > should still work (e.g., 2.6.16). If for whatever reason a release for such > > kernel is necessary, it will have a third version number. > > > > The table below summarizes the scheme. > > > > Unionfs Kernel > > ------- ------ > > 1.2 2.6.16 & 2.6.16.n > > 1.3 2.6.17 & 2.6.17.n > > 1.3.1 2.6.17.18 (in case that this version broke Unionfs > > build) > > 1.4 2.6.18 & 2.6.18.n > > This table somewhat confuses me. ;-)
Unionfs version 1.2 is going to work with 2.6.16 only. Unionfs version 1.3 is going to work with 2.6.17 only. Unionfs version 1.4 is going to work with 2.6.18 only. etc. > Apart from me maybe being confused too easily, is there, from your > experience, any unionfs snapshot yet that works (in the sense of "not > crashing very quick") with 2.6.17-rc* (since 2.6.17 isn't out yet) > compiled with SMP support <- note this part ? Unfortunately, no. And don't worry, when SMP support becomes good there will be a huge celebration here on the list (BYOB - Bring Your Own Beer) ;) > Of course, as the maintainer of SLAX already said, it is entirely my > fault of insisting in using SMP. :-) :) Jeff. -- Bad pun of the week: The formula 1 control computer suffered from a race condition _______________________________________________ unionfs mailing list [email protected] http://www.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu/mailman/listinfo/unionfs
