lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Kernel interface changes (was Re: cdrecord problems on
Date
"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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.387 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site