Linux 2.6.3, lm_sensors 2.8.5

Jean Delvare khali at linux-fr.org
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
problem.

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

Thanks.

-- 
Jean Delvare
http://www.ensicaen.ismra.fr/~delvare/



More information about the lm-sensors mailing list