lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] make uselib configurable (was Re: uselib() & 2.6.X?)
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Barry K. Nathan wrote:

>> People always claim that Linux is good in preserving binary compatibility.
>> Don't know how true that was, but introducing such config options doesnt
>> help.
>
> Binary compatibility is good to have, but it isn't everything in life.
> *Optionally* breaking compatibility with certain types of old binaries
> doesn't seem so bad to me. People who want binary compatibility can have
> it, and people who don't need it can choose to not install the old code
> on their systems.

we already allow people to not support a.out formats, this breaks binary
compatability (probably much more severely then this does)

however we do need to be very sure that if any call is dropped as being
obsolete it really is not likly to be used (see all the recent flames
about people dropping (or proposing dropping) features out of the kernel
for examples of what not to mark obsolete)

David Lang

--
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
-- C.A.R. Hoare
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.080 / U:0.752 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site