Re: Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

2005-07-27 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 22:34 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Even more to the point - when 2.6.13 comes out, there will be a patch against > 2.6.12, not 2.6.12.N, which means you get to download the 2.6.12.N tarball, > the 2.6.12.N patch, patch -R that, and *then* apply the 2.6.13 patch. The s

Re: Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

2005-07-26 Thread Gene Heskett
On Tuesday 26 July 2005 21:50, Steven Rostedt wrote: >On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 21:28 -0400, Kurt Wall wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Brian Gerst took 21 lines to write: >> > Gene Heskett wrote: >> > >Greetings; >> > > >> > >I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script

Re: Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

2005-07-26 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:50:50 EDT, Steven Rostedt said: > Someone should also fix the home page of kernel.org. Since there's no > link on that page that points to the full 2.6.12. Since a lot of the > patches on that page go directly against the 2.6.12 kernel and not > 2.6.12.3, it would be nice to

Re: Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

2005-07-26 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 21:28 -0400, Kurt Wall wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Brian Gerst took 21 lines to write: > > Gene Heskett wrote: > > >Greetings; > > > > > >I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy > > >ache because I didn't check the Makefile's

Re: Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

2005-07-26 Thread Kurt Wall
On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Brian Gerst took 21 lines to write: > Gene Heskett wrote: > >Greetings; > > > >I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy > >ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION, which was > >set to .2 in the .2 patch. Now my

Re: Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

2005-07-25 Thread Gene Heskett
On Monday 25 July 2005 12:38, Brian Gerst wrote: >Gene Heskett wrote: >> Greetings; >> >> I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a >> tummy ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION, >> which was set to .2 in the .2 patch. Now my 2.6.12 modules will >> need a re

Re: Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

2005-07-25 Thread Brian Gerst
Gene Heskett wrote: Greetings; I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION, which was set to .2 in the .2 patch. Now my 2.6.12 modules will need a refresh build. :( So whats the proper patching sequence to bui

Question re the dot releases such as 2.6.12.3

2005-07-25 Thread Gene Heskett
Greetings; I just built what I thought was 2.6.12.3, but my script got a tummy ache because I didn't check the Makefile's EXTRA_VERSION, which was set to .2 in the .2 patch. Now my 2.6.12 modules will need a refresh build. :( So whats the proper patching sequence to build a 2.6.12.3? -- Che