Messages in this thread | | | From | "Peter T. Breuer" <> | Subject | Re: Kernel interface changes (was Re: cdrecord problems on | Date | Thu, 4 Feb 1999 15:37:22 +0100 (MET) |
| |
"A month of sundays ago Derek Atkins wrote:" > > alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) writes: > > All I've said is that during stable releases (1.0, 1.2, 2.0, 2.2, > etc.), source-level *AND* binary compatibility should be tantamount.
Agreed. 2.0.x binary compatibility has been excellent from about 2.0.18 on. With some notorious hiccoughs around 2.0.30.
I am essentially able to mix and match binary modules 80% of the time between 2.0.25 and 2.0.36 (a little binary editing ..). Not that I recommend this practice, of course, ahem. But it makes no real difference to a 3c509.o binary which 2.0.x kernel it's talking to.
It's the 20% that can't be done that way that makes it unacceptable.
Peter
- 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/
| |