Is Arch's 2.6.29.2 really 2.6.29.2?

sjakub · 2009-05-09 14:19:31

Hi.

I have a question - is kernel26-2.6.29.2 package really a 2.6.29.2 kernel?
uname says it is 2.6.29, also PKGBUILD uses 2.6.29 sources.
I have compared 2.6.29.2 vanilla with 2.6.29 + Arch patches, and they seem different (not only in parts that are Arch specific).
So how does the kernel26 versioning work like?

Allan · 2009-05-09 14:24:29

http://projects.archlinux.org/?p=linux- … ;a=summary

Look at the files PATCHCFG and gen_kernel_patch. It clearly downloads the kernel 2.6.29.x patch and applies the Arch patches to it.

EVRAMP · 2009-05-09 14:40:40

Allan wrote:

http://projects.archlinux.org/?p=linux- … ;a=summary
Look at the files PATCHCFG and gen_kernel_patch. It clearly downloads the kernel 2.6.29.x patch and applies the Arch patches to it.

This is clever since you if you want to compile Kernel .29.2 and then new kernel .29.3 you don't have to download whole kernel again. The base kernel .29 is enough and result after patching is the same.

Edit: Typo

Last edited by EVRAMP (2009-05-09 14:42:45)

sjakub · 2009-05-09 15:20:04

Thanks for the link. It even says why I don't get 2.6.29.2 in uname's output

.:B:. · 2009-05-09 16:58:44

Keeping the kernel version 2.6.x has a big advantage - modules compiled e.g. for 2.6.29 will still work with 2.6.29.1, 2.6.29.2, 2.6.29.3 and higher versions (until 2.6.30 comes out, that is). If the kernel were rebuilt and renamed every time a new patch came out, that would break all third party modules every single upgrade. Now that only happens with the transition from e.g. 2.6.29 to 2.6.30.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-05-09 14:19:31

Is Arch's 2.6.29.2 really 2.6.29.2?

#2 2009-05-09 14:24:29

Re: Is Arch's 2.6.29.2 really 2.6.29.2?

#3 2009-05-09 14:40:40

Re: Is Arch's 2.6.29.2 really 2.6.29.2?

#4 2009-05-09 15:20:04

Re: Is Arch's 2.6.29.2 really 2.6.29.2?

#5 2009-05-09 16:58:44

Re: Is Arch's 2.6.29.2 really 2.6.29.2?

Board footer