[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff]
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 01:43:11PM -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> At 11:58 AM 11/5/01 -0800, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> >use of a version field. Rather than try to support all versions, use it to
> >determine whether the two ends of the communication channel are
> >compatible, and fail gracefully because of the incompatible version. Tell
> >the user to update the app, or whatever.


> And then there is the problem of who pays for my time to make the app
> update. I don't charge people for updates as a rule -- that rule may have
> to change for my Linux apps if this ill-thought-out idea goes into the
> kernel. I expend enough effort trying to keep up with the crap coming out

I hope you just don't mean the version number idea. Because I don't see
reason for not, instead of adding a version number to every /proc file and
breaknig everything, adding all them to a /proc/proc-version file which
would still let clients make some sanity checks.

____/| Ragnar Højland Freedom - Linux - OpenGL | Brainbench MVP
\ o.O| PGP94C4B2F0D27DE025BE2302C104B78C56 B72F0822 | for Unix Programming
=(_)= "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for | (
U chaos and madness await thee at its end."
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.180 / U:0.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site