You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
How come the full kernel version isn't included in the arch kernel? Like when doing uname -r, it only shows 2.6.27-ARCH, and not what further revision of .27 it is. Would it be too hard to include that, so we could know whether it was 2.6.27.1, or 2.6.27.5, etc?
Offline
pacman -Qs ^kernel26
Offline
thanks - and that only takes like 13.68x longer than uname-.
Offline
pacman -Q kernel26
Should take about the same time as uname -a
Have you Syued today?
Free music for free people! | Earthlings
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -- A. de Saint-Exupery
Offline
How come the full kernel version isn't included in the arch kernel? Like when doing uname -r, it only shows 2.6.27-ARCH, and not what further revision of .27 it is. Would it be too hard to include that, so we could know whether it was 2.6.27.1, or 2.6.27.5, etc?
So that in kernel 2.6.x.y, modules do not have to be rebuilt for every LOCALVERSION y release, but only for every EXTRAVERSION x release. If I recall, the kernel is supposed to be module compatible across all LOCALVERSION (y) releases, but not necessarily across EXTRAVERSION (x) releases.
It was a conscious decision, and not a 'it is too hard to add the point release so you can get it in the uname'.
"Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept." -- Postel's Law
"tacos" -- Cactus' Law
"t̥͍͎̪̪͗a̴̻̩͈͚ͨc̠o̩̙͈ͫͅs͙͎̙͊ ͔͇̫̜t͎̳̀a̜̞̗ͩc̗͍͚o̲̯̿s̖̣̤̙͌ ̖̜̈ț̰̫͓ạ̪͖̳c̲͎͕̰̯̃̈o͉ͅs̪ͪ ̜̻̖̜͕" -- -̖͚̫̙̓-̺̠͇ͤ̃ ̜̪̜ͯZ͔̗̭̞ͪA̝͈̙͖̩L͉̠̺͓G̙̞̦͖O̳̗͍
Offline
How come the full kernel version isn't included in the arch kernel?
As far as uname goes, so that /lib/modules/2.6.27-ARCH does not become...
/lib/modules/2.6.27.1-ARCH
/lib/modules/2.6.27.2-ARCH
/lib/modules/2.6.27.3-ARCH
/lib/modules/2.6.27.4-ARCH
/lib/modules/2.6.27.5-ARCH
It means that the NVIDIA, VirtualBox etc modules always stay in the same place so if their bindings arent changed (unusual in a kernel fix update) then the modules just keep on working rather than needing a new version of them for every kernel update.
Just shows pacman > uname
EDIT: DAMN YOU TACO MAN! beat me to it
Last edited by shazeal (2008-11-09 20:37:23)
Offline
userlander wrote:How come the full kernel version isn't included in the arch kernel? Like when doing uname -r, it only shows 2.6.27-ARCH, and not what further revision of .27 it is. Would it be too hard to include that, so we could know whether it was 2.6.27.1, or 2.6.27.5, etc?
So that in kernel 2.6.x.y, modules do not have to be rebuilt for every LOCALVERSION y release, but only for every EXTRAVERSION x release. If I recall, the kernel is supposed to be module compatible across all LOCALVERSION (y) releases, but not necessarily across EXTRAVERSION (x) releases.
It was a conscious decision, and not a 'it is too hard to add the point release so you can get it in the uname'.
I see - thanks for the explanation. I knew there had to be some reason, but I had no idea what it was.
Offline
Pages: 1