Linux 2.6.3, lm_sensors 2.8.5

Jean Delvare khali at
Thu Feb 19 23:07:18 CET 2004

Hi Axel,

> Could the versioning scheme be redesigned, so that the first two
> digits indicate the same i2c/lm_sensors interface? E.g. lm_sensors
> 2.9.x requires i2c 2.9.y where x is not necessarily equal to y.

This would need that the second number of the version would increase by
one with almost each release. I don't like that idea much. Also, we more
or less try to keep our release versions in sync with Linux 2.6, and
that's something I wouldn't want to break.

> That way one could decouple release cycles of lm_sensors and i2c to
> use different pacing. It would also help packagers to decide whether a
> new kernel with mandatory i2c patching is necessary for building
> lm_sensors kernel modules, and even embed virtually Provides and
> Requires in kernels and lm_sensors packages (e.g. a future
> kernel-2.6.10-i2c193 provides "kernel-i2c = 2.9.3" and
> lm_sensors-2.9.7 requires "kernel-i2c >= 2.9.0, kernel-i2c <= 2.10").

I don't see much benefit (probably because I am not a packager (anymore)
;)). The minimal i2c version required is documented in
lm_sensors2/INSTALL. OK, it happens that this information is *wrong* at
least in the last (2.8.4) release, but we'll try to keep it up-to-date
by now. I think that this information, if reliable, should be enough for
packagers to know how to setup their dependencies.

I agree that this doesn't cover the "be foreseeable" part of your
request. But, with the exception of i2c-2.8.0, lm_sensors verions should
all work well with future versions of i2c, so this shouldn't be a big

For my own information, do you have any exemple of project following the
numbering scheme you suggest between two or more of their packages?


Jean Delvare

More information about the lm-sensors mailing list