Benjamin Scott wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, Tom Rauschenbach wrote:
> > Linus himself has spoken to this.
>
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, Jeffry Smith wrote:
> > On more important stuff - Linus' statement on LKML about binary
> > compatibility is he doesn't care.
>
>
> > ... He ensures compatibility within a release (2.2, 2.0, etc) ...
>
> <laughter> I've seen kernel modules from the *same release* refuse to load
> because of unresolved symbols. And not just for things like the SMP flag
> being set. This "binary compatibilities within major releases" is an
> unrealized goal, IMNSHO.
>
Hm. Personally haven't had any problems not caused by RH's mods to
the kernel. However, Alan in one post went over a bunch of the
variables that change on compiles (SMP / UP, arch, 32 or 64 bit,
optimization used, etc). Best bet is to recompile modules for the
specific version, userspace shouldn't change much, as it's POSIX
(mostly) (and, yes it does change some - either because it's moving
towards POSIX or moving away because Linus et al declare POSIX
"braindead" on a feature).
One point for a quote from Linux on compatibility:
http://kt.linuxcare.com/kernel-traffic/kt20000501_65.epl#5
--
jeff smith
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thought for the day: Getting into trouble is easy.
-- D. Winkel and F. Prosser
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
