On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 10:25:20AM -0500, Albert Cahalan wrote: > On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 00:53 +0100, Robert Millan wrote: > > I'm attaching two patches, one with the debian-specific changes and another > > with the upstream changes. I think this addresses all your concerns about > > my previous patch. > > There is simply no need to be patching minimal.c. > This file does not normally get compiled.
It won't work without my patch. If this file is unneeded, why not just removing it? > As for the other change, I guess that's about right, but > perhaps you could supply a Linux kernel version via /proc. > Then, as you /proc becomes more capable, you just change > the Linux version being reported. What do you use LINUX_VERSION for? The version in /proc/version is intended to match with the implementation in the same version of Linux procfs. It's unrelated to other kernel features. So for what linprocfs is concerned, we're Linux 2.4, for what RT signals are concerned, we're Linux 2.0, etc. Even the linprocfs implementation is far from complete. I don't think we're safe claiming anything other than 2.0 in /proc/version. -- .''`. Proudly running Debian GNU/kFreeBSD unstable/unreleased (on UFS2+S) : :' : `. `' http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
