Messages in this thread | | | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Improved version reporting | Date | Fri, 16 Mar 2001 23:35:49 -0500 (EST) |
| |
Andries.Brouwer writes: >> From: "Albert D. Cahalan" <acahalan@cs.uml.edu> >>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 Andries.Brouwer@cwi.nl wrote:
>>>>> +o Console Tools # 0.3.3 # loadkeys -V >>>>> +o Mount # 2.10e # mount --version >>>> >>>> Concerning mount: (i) the version mentioned is too old, >> >> Exactly why? Mere missing features don't make for a required >> upgrade. Version number inflation should be resisted. ... > These days you can mount several filesystems at the same mount point. > The old mount does not understand this at all. > Recent versions of mount act better in this respect, > even though it is still easy to confuse them.
The rule should be like this:
List the lowest version number required to get 2.2.xx-level features while running a 2.4.xx kernel.
Remember what the purpose of the table is. It is a list of REQUIRED upgrades. Failure to upgrade should result in a broken system. So pppd must be listed, since somebody changed the kernel API for 2.4.1.
If I run the mount command from Red Hat 6.2, using it as intended for a 2.2.xx kernel, doesn't everything work? There won't be any multi-mount confusion because 2.2.xx can't do that anyway. There isn't any problem with NFSv3 either, since 2.2.xx lacks NFSv3.
Basically I ask: would existing scripts for a 2.2.xx kernel break? If the old mount can still do what it used to do, then "mount" need not be listed at all.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |