|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > October 2004 > Kernel version 100
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Kernel version 100
|
|
| Ladislav Bodnar 2004-10-26, 5:51 pm |
| Just curious: any particular reason why the kernel version is reported
as "100" on http://packages.debian.org/unstable/allpackages?
kernel-image-2.6-386 (100)
Linux kernel image for version 2.6 on 386.
kernel-image-2.6-686 (100)
Linux kernel image for version 2.6 on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV.
kernel-image-2.6-686-smp (100)
Linux kernel image for version 2.6 on PPro/Celeron/PII/PIII/PIV SMP.
kernel-image-2.6-amd64-generic (2.6.8-5)
Linux kernel image for version 2.6 on generic x86_64 systems
kernel-image-2.6-amd64-k8 (2.6.8-5)
This seems to be the case with some architectures, but not all.
Thanks a lot :-)
Ladislav
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Norbert Tretkowski 2004-10-26, 5:51 pm |
| * Ladislav Bodnar wrote:
> Just curious: any particular reason why the kernel version is reported
> as "100" on http://packages.debian.org/unstable/allpackages?
>
> kernel-image-2.6-386 (100)
> Linux kernel image for version 2.6 on 386.
This is just a meta-package, which depends on the latest 2.6 kernel
available.
Norbert
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Ladislav Bodnar 2004-10-26, 5:51 pm |
| On Tuesday 26 October 2004 22:15, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
>
> This is just a meta-package, which depends on the latest 2.6 kernel
> available.
Yes, but it used to have a proper version number in the parenthesis not=20
so long ago. Why the sudden change?
Ladislav
| |
| Thiemo Seufer 2004-10-26, 5:51 pm |
| Ladislav Bodnar wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 October 2004 22:15, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
>
> Yes, but it used to have a proper version number in the parenthesis not
> so long ago.
100 is also a proper version number.
> Why the sudden change?
The way the metapackage was built changed, so the version number was
increased by an arbitrary amount.
Thiemo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|