Linux package version missing patch number, uname includes it?

viperzer0 · 2024-01-17 23:30:59

I just had a minor question about the difference between the version number shown in the package details versus the actual kernel version displayed by "uname -r". I use a small bash script that compares the version reported by pacman -Qi linux to uname -r, and if they differ it tells me i need to restart my computer to load the upgraded kernel. With the latest 6.7 release however, the output of pacman -Qi linux is "6.7.arch3-1" while the output of uname -r is "6.7.0-arch3-1". So it looks like they're effectively the same version but the versioning format is different. I mostly just want to know if this is intentional or not. If this is intentional, I'm not sure how I would parse one of or both version strings to determine if they're actually equivalent or not, but any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
viperzer0

Trilby · 2024-01-18 00:43:43

It's intentional, in the sense that this has been how previous kernels with a zero revision number have been named.

However I'd say it is a bug as it breaks versioning if a '.' is put in place of the '-'. For example, it is reasonable that 6.7.0-arch3-1 could be considered equal to 6.7-arch3-1, but when the first dash changes to a dot it completely breaks monotonic version numbering as "arch3" becomes the revision number.

Or in other words, if the `uname -r` format was used, the presence of absence of the terminal zero shouldn't matter. But in the package name format, it does.

(note: I'm using "revision number" here to refer to the third element of a version number as in Major.Minor.Revision, not the package revision number which is appended later.)

Last edited by Trilby (2024-01-18 00:46:21)

viperzer0 · 2024-01-19 05:39:33

Definitely an interesting choice. Thanks for the clarification though, I was having a hard time finding any documentation on the Linux kernel's versioning schema, so I wasn't sure if it warranted a bug report or anything like that. I'll probably just disable the version check until another update rolls around. Thanks!

Trilby · 2024-01-19 13:50:25

Or just write a smarter version check. You already had to account for the difference between the dot and dash, this shouldn't be any harder.

loqs · 2024-01-19 14:22:43

viperzer0 wrote:

I was having a hard time finding any documentation on the Linux kernel's versioning schema, so I wasn't sure if it warranted a bug report or anything like that.

6.7 is the upstream tag https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/ke … ag/?h=v6.7 and also KERNELVERSION omits including SUBLEVEL if it is 0 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/ke … =v6.7#n361.

NuSkool · 2024-01-21 01:11:50

I've used both pacman to list the files of linux and filter them (below), and used the find command +(lazy hack) to compare the running (uname -r) vs installed kernel versions in a script.

$ pacman -Qlq linux | awk -F/ '/usr\/lib\/modules\/[0-9]/ {print $5; exit}'
6.7.0-arch3-1

$ find /usr/lib/modules -maxdepth 1 -printf "%f\n" | grep -v modules | sort | tail -n1
6.7.0-arch3-1

$ uname -r
6.7.0-arch3-1

$ pacman -Q linux
linux 6.7.arch3-1

These may also have pitfalls, but it's only used to provide info and haven't noticed anything unusual.

Last edited by NuSkool (2024-01-21 01:20:38)

Arch Linux

#1 2024-01-17 23:30:59

Linux package version missing patch number, uname includes it?

#2 2024-01-18 00:43:43

Re: Linux package version missing patch number, uname includes it?

#3 2024-01-19 05:39:33

Re: Linux package version missing patch number, uname includes it?

#4 2024-01-19 13:50:25

Re: Linux package version missing patch number, uname includes it?

#5 2024-01-19 14:22:43

Re: Linux package version missing patch number, uname includes it?

#6 2024-01-21 01:11:50

Re: Linux package version missing patch number, uname includes it?

Board footer