Just when you thought 2.6 would go on forever...

[Stefan Bader]

On 31.05.2011 02:21, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 11:01 +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> On 30.05.2011 10:54, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
>>> Hi Stefan,
>>>
>>>> And as a side note from Colin Watson:
>>>>
>>>> "so regarding 3.0; the kernel team knows that 3.0.0<   3.0 as far as dpkg is
>>>> concerned, right?  we'll need to be careful when uploading the RCs ..."
>>>>
>>>> "you can use 3.0~3.0.0-<whatever>   or similar..."
>>>
>>> The changelog for 3.0-rc1:
>>>
>>>       Linux 3.0-rc1
>>>
>>>       .. except there are various scripts that really know that there are
>>>       three numbers, so it calls itself "3.0.0-rc1".
>>>
>>>       Hopefully by the time the final 3.0 is out, we'll have that extra
>>>       zero all figured out.
>>>
>>>       Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds<torvalds at linux-foundation.org>
>>>
>>> If there's something you need w.r.t. the "extra zero", I'd say now is
>>> the time to speak up :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>>
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>
>> I guess the "interesting" part is how stable/longterm will fit in. Will those
>> take up the free SUBLEVEL or still put the additional digit into EXTRAVERSION?
>> And will they start with 0 or 1. I wished I had some voices telling. :)
>
> Stable updates are intended to use the third component, starting with a
> value of 1.  So if you convert "3.0" to "3.0.0" there should still be no
> ambiguity with later stable updates.
>
> Ben.
>

Ok, so 1 it will be and I assume "to use the third component" means those will 
increment SUBLEVEL. Thanks. :)

It might be less problematic once settled. It seemed to me atm the kernel 
scripts can get into issues with a 3.0 and so 3.0.0 is used but it might get 
dropped later. Which could cause package version oddness with having 3.0.0 before.

-Stefan