[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.6.16-rc4: known regressions
    Kay Sievers <> wrote:
    > > We broke back-compatibility. The changelog _failed to tell us_ that we
    > > were breaking back-compatibility. The patch wouldn't have been applied if
    > > we'd been told that. At least, not without a lot of careful thought.
    > >
    > > The fact that the changelog failed to tell us this makes one suspect that
    > > the breakage was inadvertent.
    > >
    > >
    > > So no, upgrading HAL is not a good answer. Please fix the kernel.
    > [ bunch of special-pleading ]

    None of that matters or is relevant.

    You took a kernel interface which was present in 2.6.10, 2.6.11, 2.6.12,
    2.6.13, 2.6.14 and 2.6.15 and changed it in a non-compatible way, without
    telling us that it was non-compatible and without even notifying people
    that we'd gone and broken existing userspace.

    We. Don't. Do. That.

    Please either restore the old events so we can have a 6-12 month transition
    period or revert the patch.

    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: 2006-02-22 01:28    [W:0.020 / U:28.420 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site