Re: [RFC] Changes file [was Re: modules directory]

2000-09-12 Thread Oliver Xymoron
On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Simon Huggins wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 01:41:45AM -0500, Oliver Xymoron wrote: > > > > This is similar to my patch-names patch, which lets you add components > > > > to uname too. IIRC, it was rejected because it made things easier. > > > Erm? Not really. Not unless

Re: [RFC] Changes file [was Re: modules directory]

2000-09-11 Thread Simon Huggins
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 01:41:45AM -0500, Oliver Xymoron wrote: > > > This is similar to my patch-names patch, which lets you add components > > > to uname too. IIRC, it was rejected because it made things easier. > > Erm? Not really. Not unless you want > > 2.2.x-requires-modutils-2.3.9-req

Re: [RFC] Changes file [was Re: modules directory]

2000-09-11 Thread Oliver Xymoron
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Simon Huggins wrote: > On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 11:59:41AM -0500, Oliver Xymoron wrote: > > This is similar to my patch-names patch, which lets you add components > > to uname too. IIRC, it was rejected because it made things easier. > > Erm? Not really. Not unless you want

Re: [RFC] Changes file [was Re: modules directory]

2000-09-11 Thread Simon Huggins
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 11:59:41AM -0500, Oliver Xymoron wrote: > This is similar to my patch-names patch, which lets you add components > to uname too. IIRC, it was rejected because it made things easier. Erm? Not really. Not unless you want 2.2.x-requires-modutils-2.3.9-requires-pppd-x.y.

Re: [RFC] Changes file [was Re: modules directory]

2000-09-11 Thread Simon Huggins
On Sat, Sep 09, 2000 at 05:18:51PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > Simon Huggins wrote: [about modutils and complaints that people don't read Documentation/Changes] > > Why not make it easy on people and have a log something like: > > 2.4.0-testX-preY > > Requires modutils-x.y.z otherwise

Re: [RFC] Changes file [was Re: modules directory]

2000-09-09 Thread Oliver Xymoron
On Sat, 9 Sep 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote: > Simon Huggins wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 08:46:56AM +1100, Keith Owens wrote: > > ... and a few more times recent weeks ... > > > > > > > > Why don't you look in linux/Documentation/Changes? That file exist > > > precisely to stop repeated q

Re: [RFC] Changes file [was Re: modules directory]

2000-09-09 Thread Daniel Phillips
Simon Huggins wrote: > On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 08:46:56AM +1100, Keith Owens wrote: > ... and a few more times recent weeks ... > > > > > Why don't you look in linux/Documentation/Changes? That file exist > > precisely to stop repeated questions like this on the linux kernel > > developers list

[RFC] Changes file [was Re: modules directory]

2000-09-09 Thread Simon Huggins
On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 08:46:56AM +1100, Keith Owens wrote: ... and a few more times recent weeks ... > > Why don't you look in linux/Documentation/Changes? That file exist > precisely to stop repeated questions like this on the linux kernel > developers list. > Because the file just lists v