Docs: Update information at changes.rst
Subsystems (2)
v2 cover Docs: Update information at changes.rst
Add and update information at 'Documentation/process/changes.rst'. The text has outdated kernel version and misses the 'cpio' build requirement, necessary for the kernel/gen_kheaders.sh script called by the install target.
The PATCH 1/2 fixes the missing cpio requirement, while PATCH 2/2 fixes the kernel version reference.
---
CHANGE SUMMARY
version: v1 v2 [PATCH 1/2] * - [PATCH 1/2] * *
CHANGELOG
[PATCH 1/2] Docs: Add cpio requirement to changes.rst
v2:
- No changes
[PATCH 2/2] Docs: Replace version by 'current' in changes.rst
v2:
- Renamed from 'Docs: Update kernel series in changes.rst'
- Changed approach from the original, replacing 4.x by 5.x, to using 'current', as suggested by Matthew Wilcox.
---
Bruno Moreira-Guedes (2):
Docs: Add cpio requirement to changes.rst
Docs: Replace version by 'current' in changes.rst
Documentation/process/changes.rst | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
2.35.3
PATCH v2 1/2 Docs: Add cpio requirement to changes.rst
The install target requires cpio to run the kernel/gen_kheaders.sh script, but it's missing in the requirements list at 'Documentation/process/changes.rst'. This patch adds it to the list.
--- Documentation/process/changes.rst | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
Documentation/process/changes.rst +6 -0
@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ iptables 1.4.2 iptables -V openssl & libcrypto 1.0.0 openssl version bc 1.06.95 bc --version Sphinx\ [#f1]_ 1.7 sphinx-build --version +cpio any cpio --version ====================== =============== ======================================== .. [#f1] Sphinx is needed only to build the Kernel documentation
@@ -458,6 +459,11 @@ mcelog - <http://www.mcelog.org/> +cpio +---- + +- <https://www.gnu.org/software/cpio/> + Networking **********
Signature · 1 line
2.35.3
PATCH v2 2/2 Docs: Replace version by 'current' in changes.rst
In reply to Bruno Moreira-GuedesThe file 'Documentation/process/changes.rst' states the listed requirements are for the 4.x kernel version. However, there are requirements updated for the 5.x version, as there might be in other future versions. This patch updates it to 'latest' so the document won't be outdated in the future.
--- Documentation/process/changes.rst | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Documentation/process/changes.rst +1 -1
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ Intro ===== This document is designed to provide a list of the minimum levels of -software necessary to run the 4.x kernels. +software necessary to run the current kernel version. This document is originally based on my "Changes" file for 2.0.x kernels and therefore owes credit to the same people as that file (Jared Mauch,
Signature · 1 line
2.35.3
Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Docs: Add cpio requirement to changes.rst
In reply to Bruno Moreira-GuedesDocumentation/process/changes.rst iptables 1.4.2 iptables -V · line 61
Quoted 11 lines · Bruno Moreira-Guedes
Documentation/process/changes.rst +1
-0@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ iptables 1.4.2 iptables -V openssl & libcrypto 1.0.0 openssl version bc 1.06.95 bc --version Sphinx\ [#f1]_ 1.7 sphinx-build --version +cpio any cpio --version ====================== =============== ========================================
You mentioned that **any** version of cpio will work, right? Or is there a specific minimum version?
Signature · 1 line
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Jonathan Corbet
maintainerRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] Docs: Add cpio requirement to changes.rst
Quoted 15 lines · Bagas Sanjaya
Documentation/process/changes.rst iptables 1.4.2 iptables -V · line 61
Quoted 11 lines · Bruno Moreira-Guedes
Documentation/process/changes.rst +1
-0@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ iptables 1.4.2 iptables -V openssl & libcrypto 1.0.0 openssl version bc 1.06.95 bc --version Sphinx\ [#f1]_ 1.7 sphinx-build --version +cpio any cpio --version ====================== =============== ========================================You mentioned that **any** version of cpio will work, right? Or is there a specific minimum version?
The statement of "any" seems fairly explicit to me. It has been a few ... decades ... since cpio has seen any sort of rapid development; do you have any reason to think there might be a version in the wild that would not work?
jon
Jonathan Corbet
maintainerQuoted 9 lines · Bruno Moreira-Guedes
Add and update information at '
Documentation/process/changes.rst'. The text has outdated kernel version and misses the 'cpio' build requirement, necessary for thekernel/gen_kheaders.shscript called by the install target.The PATCH 1/2 fixes the missing cpio requirement, while PATCH 2/2 fixes the kernel version reference.
Signed-off-by Bruno Moreira-Guedes <[email protected]>
Patches applied, thanks.
jon
Quoted 8 lines · Jonathan Corbet
Quoted 5 lines · Bruno Moreira-Guedes
The PATCH 1/2 fixes the missing cpio requirement, while PATCH 2/2 fixes the kernel version reference.
Signed-off-by Bruno Moreira-Guedes <[email protected]>Patches applied, thanks.
Thanks, Jon! I have also been thinking whether this filename ('changes.rst') is a good description of the file contents. Do you think renaming it to something like 'requirements.rst' and updating its references would be a good patch?
Jonathan Corbet
maintainerQuoted 6 lines · Bruno Moreira-Guedes
Quoted 5 lines · Jonathan Corbet
Quoted 4 lines · Bruno Moreira-Guedes
The PATCH 1/2 fixes the missing cpio requirement, while PATCH 2/2 fixes the kernel version reference.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Bruno Moreira-Guedes <[email protected]>Patches applied, thanks.
Thanks, Jon! I have also been thinking whether this filename ('
changes.rst') is a good description of the file contents. Do you think renaming it to something like 'requirements.rst' and updating its references would be a good patch?
It's best not to rename things unnecessarily, especially relatively well-known files that a lot of people expect to find in a specific place. We've done a lot of renaming over the last few years, but this is one I might let slide for now.
Thanks,
jon
Quoted 10 lines · Jonathan Corbet
Quoted 4 lines
Thanks, Jon! I have also been thinking whether this filename ('
changes.rst') is a good description of the file contents. Do you think renaming it to something like 'requirements.rst' and updating its references would be a good patch?It's best not to rename things unnecessarily, especially relatively well-known files that a lot of people expect to find in a specific place. We've done a lot of renaming over the last few years, but this is one I might let slide for now.
Did you mean the rename will be benefical?
Signature · 1 line
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
Jonathan Corbet
maintainerQuoted 6 lines · Bagas Sanjaya
Quoted 5 lines · Jonathan Corbet
Quoted 4 lines
Thanks, Jon! I have also been thinking whether this filename ('
changes.rst') is a good description of the file contents. Do you think renaming it to something like 'requirements.rst' and updating its references would be a good patch?
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
It's best not to rename things unnecessarily, especially relatively well-known files that a lot of people expect to find in a specific place. We've done a lot of renaming over the last few years, but this is one I might let slide for now.
Did you mean the rename will be benefical?
No, I would not do the rename at this time.
jon