On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 11:57:00AM +0200, Jens David wrote:
> Of cause the new kernel needs new tools which will not work with
> the old kernel. That�s why I released seperate distributions. I
> orginally wanted to keep the new tools backward compatible. I modified
> the autoconf scripts so that they tried to find out at compile time whether
> they were being compiled for old or new AX.25 . I sent the patches to you,
> but did not get any response. I concluded that there was no interest. Thus
> I became quite sloppy about placing my #ifdefs during further changes.
I don't recall an email, which address did you send it to?
I do remember some discussion about non-backwards compatible API and how
I and many others said it was a bad idea.
OK, just so I know when to expect the torrent of emails saying their
setup doesn't work are you telling me that a standard 2.2.14 kernel
does not work with the plain vanilla ax25 tools or apps?
This information is critical for me as Debian is going into deep freeze
and I must tell the release manager if there is a problem immediately.
Checking at compile time for what sort of system you are running is just
a totally bad idea. You do understand that the various distributions
distribute binaries, ie they are compilied once?
> Also, I will remerge ax25-tools and -apps (I do not see the reason to have
> two packages here) and call the resulting package ax25-utils again. The
> library will have to be completely reworked, too. I do not like those
> proc-scanning functions and axports stuff at all. I think I am going to
> call this libax25-2, but I�m not yet completely sure about this.
Aiee, please call them (ax25-utils and libax25-2) something else. The
first is evil because people will get confused about which package you
are talking about, the second because there will be confusion again
but also it has a wierd name format that plays havoc with packagers.
> I know that this will pose a lot of administrative problems. But I will
> not accept any performance-compatibility tradeoffs here, except perhaps
> the binary compatibility with the old socket interface.
If I have read and understood things correctly, I don't think you
realise what size of a disaster you are making for people, especially
the distributions.
- Craig
--
Craig Small VK2XLZ GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5
Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIEEE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
