New Kernel - athlon - Mozilla

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Sep  8, 2003, Dave Jones <davej at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 09:19:55AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> Unless there's an epoch that makes it look newer, this will indeed be
>> the case.

> We can't/don't/won't use epoch in the kernel rpm.

Excellent.

>> I don't see the point of this change though.  Why not cal
>> it 2.4.22-21.whatever or 20.2030, or even 20.1.2030, such that it is
>> clearly newer than the already-released kernel?

> because that number makes no sense to have in the revision string any more.

IMHO they started making sense when the kernel 2.4.22-20.etc was
pushed to RHN.  Now we're sort of stuck with them.

>> Version numbers shouldn't go back without a very good reason, IMHO.

> Welcome to rawhide. The fix is simple in this case at least, and doesn't
> break anything. *ponder*, how will the installer handle this if someone
> tries to update a beta1 install with a beta2 CD when that appears ?

I'd strongly suggest you to change it back to something that RPM
recognizes as newer than the latest kernel in RHN Severn updates, and
return to a sensible version numbering scheme on 2.4.23.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, GCC Team, Red Hat