Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:23:34 +0100 | From | Robert Thorncrantz <> | Subject | Re: Kernel interface changes (was Re: cdrecord problems on |
| |
On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 09:11:04AM -0500, Kev wrote: > we're not talking about going from 2.0 to 2.2; we're talking about going > from 2.0.33 to 2.0.34.
Perhaps you are, but other people have been complaining about things changing between 2.0.x and 2.2.x, and between 2.1.x and 2.1.y.
> In the past, many changes have been made which > have broken binary compatibility without warning and without good reason. > *THIS MUST NOT CONTINUE HAPPENING* if Linux expects to get anywhere.
I'm a little curious, how many times have this happened actually? So far all examples I've seen have are the same ioctl padding change hashed over and over again. A change that looks more like a mistake to me than a deliberate design change. (that is, the a new ioctl should have been used, and the old one kept for compatibility at least for the 2.0.x series, a method that has been used before, IIRC.) Mistakes are bad enough, but it's not the same thing as doing arbitrary design changes.
/Robert T.
-- Robert Thörncrantz rtz@pirx.df.lth.se Mundus Vult Decipi dat95rth@ludat.lth.se dat95rth@student3.lu.se
- 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/
| |