LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   Slackware64 14.1 - strange build number in patches (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/slackware64-14-1-strange-build-number-in-patches-4175548570/)

websafe 07-21-2015 06:18 PM
Slackware64 14.1 - strange build number in patches
 
Hmm, maybe it's because I'm tired, but I've found something strange? If you take a look at http://sunsite.icm.edu.pl/pub/Linux/...slackware64/a/ You'll find there the following kernel packages:

+ kernel-generic-3.10.17-x86_64-3.txz
+ kernel-huge-3.10.17-x86_64-3.txz
+ kernel-modules-3.10.17-x86_64-3.txz

As you can see, all packages are v. 3.10.17 and BUILD 3 (three), created on 23-Oct-2013. That's OK, but why is a newer (14-Feb-2014!) BUILD 2 (two) in patches?!?

http://sunsite.icm.edu.pl/pub/Linux/...nux-3.10.17-2/

+ kernel-generic-3.10.17-x86_64-2.txz
+ kernel-huge-3.10.17-x86_64-2.txz
+ kernel-modules-3.10.17-x86_64-2.txz

Why is build 2 (and not 4) in patches?

ljb643 07-21-2015 06:56 PM
Looks like a mistake to me. There was a kernel security patch for 64-bit only in Feb 2014, announced on the list and in the ChangeLog, but as you found it has build number 2, and the kernel it replaced is the original Slackware64 14.1 one with build number 3.

Didier Spaier 07-21-2015 09:52 PM
There could have been a confusion between the patch level and the build number.

I don't think that's very important as anyway upgradepkg replaces the current kernel by the one you tell you to regardless or their respective versions. This is what is written in the "Welcome to Linux (Slackware 14.1)!" mail from PV:
Quote:
Some also think that any package with a larger
build number is "better", when there have been many instances that a
new upstream release wasn't working properly and we had to roll back to
an earlier one, and an automated upgrade tool didn't want to
"downgrade" the package. This is something upgradepkg will gladly do,
as it doesn't (as it should not) take the package's version number to
mean much of anything.

allend 07-22-2015 06:24 AM
Welcome to the club.
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ry-4175504331/
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...on-4175520633/
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...rs-4175530380/
Essentially it was a small error that occurred when quickly addressing a nasty kernel bug.

websafe 07-23-2015 06:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by allend (Post 5394783)
Welcome to the club.
Thank you for this explanation :-) Problem solved.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04 AM.