On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:58:00PM -0400, Paul Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2013-10-20 at 20:15 -0700, David Boyce wrote: > > Paul. > > > > Thank you very much! This means I'll be able to make professional use > > the many features and bugfixes which have arrived post-3.81 at some > > point. Given the flurry of other fit-and-finish fixes lately, would it > > be safe to assume there will be a 4.01 or equivalent upcoming in the > > foreseeable future? > > Yes, before too long. I don't plan on any major features in the next > release, just cleanup and bug fixing. > > I don't plan on a release right away (like this month) though.
Not a problem; it should be an easy patch to backport. > I have to admit I still just don't understand the problem here. Surely > no one is building kernels that old (pre-2.6.34) without any patches at > all applied; that sounds inconceivably insecure. Why not just add one > more patch that changes the 3 places (at most) in the makefiles that > have this problem to the suite of patches that are already applied to > those old kernels when you build them? It seems insane to me to avoid > updating tools merely because of a few lines of makefile change in > kernels that are almost 4 years old. When doing archaeology on old kernels via git, you don't normally apply *any* patches if you can help it, because they're a pain to keep re-applying to each kernel you want to examine. > Anyway. It will work for now, apparently. Thanks! - Josh Triplett _______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
