lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Oct]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC] Kernel version numbering scheme change
    On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 01:16:38AM -0700, Steven Noonan wrote:
    > I believe some of Adrian's concerns are valid. Userspace programs will
    > indeed break, largely because some depend on build-time and run-time
    > checks for the kernel version being >=2.6.0 or >=2.4.0 and so forth. I
    > suspect the best way to prove userspace breakage would be to make a
    > branch of the kernel with a new versioning scheme (8.10, 2008.10,
    > whatever) and use that as the installed kernel while building a Gentoo
    > system. I suspect you'd see massive breakage.

    The breakage is expected of course but should remain minor. It has
    always existed, when switching from 2.0 to 2.1, then 2.1 to 2.2,
    assuming that 2.2 was equivalent to 2.1.XX for some tools (remember
    knfsd ?), then from 2.2 to 2.3, then to assume that 2.4 was roughly
    equal to some 2.3.XX for some tools, then 2.5.XX then 2.6. Now some
    tools know that all 2.6 are not equivalent and they add new checks
    as versions appear.

    It will not be a problem. Some versions of some tools will certainly
    break at some point, but these are the ones used to check for a given
    platform, and it is normal for them to evolve and follow new releases.

    I know I have some build scripts packaging one way for 2.4 and another
    way for 2.6. Should initramfs not work anymore for instance, I'd have
    to rethink the process for more recent 2.6 anyway. It is possible that
    I'll have to do this with the recent firmware changes.

    Some tools which already assume that all 2.6 are equivalent will one
    day or another have to refine their checks after kernel feature
    removals which we're not allowed to complain about (eg: some modules).

    So updating tools to add support for new versions is not a major problem
    because it will eventually happen anyway.

    > I think a version numbering system change would be OK (though I
    > wouldn't very much -like- it), so long as there was a way for
    > userspace software to be able to differentiate between a kernel with
    > the old versioning system and the new versioning system.
    >
    > I think perhaps a better option in the long run is to start a v2.7
    > tree and figure out some Cool New Stuff(tm) to implement, keeping
    > consistency with the current versioning scheme.

    It would require tools updates as well.

    Willy



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-10-18 10:35    [W:2.963 / U:0.720 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site