Re: is it 5.99.2 or 5.99.02 ?

[Juergen Hannken-Illjes <hannken%eis.cs.tu-bs.de@localhost>]

On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 07:21:30AM -0800, Matt Thomas wrote:
> 
> On Nov 15, 2008, at 6:19 AM, Bernd Ernesti wrote:
> 
> >[Including matt who changed it to 5.99.01]
> >
> >On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 02:22:32PM +0100, Adam Hoka wrote:
> >>Zafer Aydo?an wrote:
> >>
> >>>hello list,
> >>>
> >>>in the past kernel bumps were notated like 4.99.1 .. 4.99.9
> >>>now I'm seeing 5.99.01, 5.99.02.
> >>>
> >>>Which one is correct ?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Cheers, Zafer.
> >>
> >>I'm also interested.
> >>file(1) still says 5.99.1.
> >>
> >>Was this change intentional?
> >
> >Matt, what was the reason to go to 5.99.01 instead of 5.99.1?
> 
> The comment isn't really used so it's actually 5.99.1.  it'll back
> to two digits soon enough. :)

That is wrong: sys/conf/osrelease.sh evaluates the comment, not the value.
And share/mk/bsd.kmodule.mk uses osrelease.sh to create the module
path (and fails if the value and the comment get out of sync like
in 5.0_BETA).

-- 
Juergen Hannken-Illjes - hannken%eis.cs.tu-bs.de@localhost - TU Braunschweig 
(Germany)