Re: [PATCH] Improved version reporting

["Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu>]

Riley Williams writes:

>> The rule should be like this:
>>
>>	List the lowest version number required to get
>>	2.2.xx-level features while running a 2.4.xx kernel.
>
> That's a meaningless definition, and can only be taken as such. What
> use would such a list be to somebody wishing (like I recently was) to
> upgrade a system running the 2.0.12 kernel so it runs the 2.4.2
> kernel instead?
...
>> Basically I ask: would existing scripts for a 2.2.xx kernel
>> break? If the old mount can still do what it used to do, then
>> "mount" need not be listed at all.
>
> Replace that "a 2.2.xx" with "my current" and remove all restrictions
> on what the current kernel is, and that becomes an important question.

No, not "my current" but "the previous stable". I say "2.2.xx" because
that is the previous stable kernel.

If you upgrade from 2.0.xx, you should read the 2.2.xx changes file.

The important thing is to avoid version number inflation. I don't
even bother reading the changes file, because I know it is bogus.
Nearly all of my old software works great with a 2.4.xx kernel.