Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Kernel interface changes (was Re: cdrecord problems on | From | Jes Sorensen <> | Date | 05 Feb 1999 10:55:51 +0100 |
| |
>>>>> "Linus" == Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
Linus> In article <36bab0c7.394438@mail.cloud9.net>, John Alvord Linus> <jalvo@cloud9.net> wrote: >> On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 22:37:06 -0500 (EST), "Theodore Y. Ts'o" >> <tytso@MIT.EDU> wrote: >>> And as a result, I've seen more than a few MIT users decide to >>> give up on Linux and move over to NetBSD. I think this is bad, >>> and I'm hoping we can take just a little bit more care in the 2.2 >>> series than we did in the 2.0 series. Is that really too much to >>> ask?
Linus> Yes. I think it is. I will strive for binary compatibility Linus> for modules, but I _expect_ that it will be broken. It's just Linus> too easy to have to make changes that break binary-only Linus> modules, and I have too little incentive to try to avoid it.
Linus> If people feel this is a problem, I see a few alternatives: - Linus> don't use stuff with binary-only modules. Just say no. - work Linus> hard at making a source-version of the thing available (it Linus> doesn't have to be under the GPL if it's a module, but it has Linus> to be available as source so that it can be recompiled). - Linus> don't upgrade - drop Linux
One thing people providing binary modules like AFS could do, write thins layer wrapper for it and release the source for that. This some of the problems we have seen in the past could possibly be avoided.
Jes
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |