| 1 |
Raffaele BELARDI posted on Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:37:03 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> (2.6.30 to 2.6.30.1 or .2, for instance, noting of course |
| 4 |
>> that those are the upstream versions, Gentoo uses -rX notation in place |
| 5 |
>> of the additional version digit, for its gentoo-sources packages.) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I thought -rX was an internal Gentoo release number for ebuild. The |
| 8 |
> kernel is an exception, I guess. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
-rX is an internal Gentoo release number. But with the kernel, you'll |
| 11 |
note that they don't normally track the upstream 4th level release |
| 12 |
numbers, so that ends up getting wrapped into the -rX number as well. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Do note however that they don't necessarily exactly correspond. Thus, |
| 15 |
2.6.30-r1 may or may not correspond to upstream's 2.6.30.1. Generally, |
| 16 |
there will be bumps about the same time, but if Gentoo finds and patches |
| 17 |
other issues between upstream bumps, it might bump the -rX twice for a |
| 18 |
single upstream 2.6.x.y bump, and the reverse occurs as well. |
| 19 |
Occasionally there'll be an upstream bump, and then another one maybe two |
| 20 |
hours later the same day, if they found a brown-paper-bag issue (in LKML |
| 21 |
lingo, a really embarrassing mistake, such that one wishes to cover their |
| 22 |
head with a bag if they appear in public immediately thereafter), or if |
| 23 |
there's an exceedingly urgent but also exceedingly simple security fix. |
| 24 |
These would probably be wrapped into the same Gentoo -rX bump. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 28 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 29 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives