Re: 9.99.100 fallout: file(1)

[Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>]

    Date:        Wed, 21 Sep 2022 19:33:47 -0000 (UTC)
    From:        mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost (Michael van Elst)
    Message-ID:  <tgfour$de1$1%serpens.de@localhost>

  | -		if (ver_rel == 0 && ver_patch != 0) {
  | +		if (ver_maj >= 9) {

I'd suggest instead
		if (ver_min == 99) {

While this issue never happened with earlier NetBSDs there's no
real reason to exclude them from the possibility that it might have.

On the other hand, there's never been a version since we introduced the
.99 concept (NetBSD 2 going on to 3?) where x.99 had anything other than
a single decimal suffix.   And we never had, and I don't think anyone
expects that we ever will have, a N.9x version of NetBSD where x != 9).
That is, ver_min never has been, and never will be, 99, other than to
indicate "on the way to ver_maj + 1".

The way you have it coded, I suspect that 9.1 binaries will appear to
be 9.1.0 instead (the ver_patch data is always appended for ver_maj >= 9).

However, I wonder why this kind of info is embedded in ELF files, what
point does that have?   Maybe it would be better to have them just say
x.99 (and forget the kernel ABI bump number) ?

kre