This has nothing to do with versioning.
You are asking for ABI compatibility between different kernel versions.
The problem is probably misunderstanding about what I intend by version.
There is no stable ABI between different kernel versions and there will never be one. Please read Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt for details.
I've read it.
Assuming the fact that a kernel can be considered stable, my point of
view implies an assumption: kernel and modules are distributed by a
distro, and compiled with the same gcc. Of course, I'm not talking about
different architectures and so on, since I'm talking about something
different, I'm talking about the api involved in the developement. Distributions have to use a great care about compiler changes, and it's not kernel developers' problem.
A kernel stable 2.X version should not differ much in the
subversioning (2.X.a ~= 2.X.b). Changing APIs in the kernel can be possibly avoided by using a release versioning different from the one used now. Structues and exported functions should be almost the same, the implementation should be, and of course, must be different: bugs, improvements and so on.
I see the point about continuous developement, that's why I'm using linux since 97, but I find interesting also the design of a stable infrastructure, that can be achieved. A data structure no longer in use by anyone, functions being unused for a long time, can be made harmless. Providing a binary compatibility makes recompiling all external modules (external to the official kernel I mean) not necessary, making life easier for any other person using linux (e.g. pwc module for my logitech pro 4000 webcam, every new kernel, new module compilation. Stability makes in this sense a real big improvement. An example of this care can be found in trolltech qt library. I use them since 1.x and it's a really good thing assuring the binary compatibility... of course they just screw it some day to day :) Everybody can be wrong.
I find it an interesting point anyway. I know there would never be, as you said, but I don't find the document you've pointed me to, really convincing. Still have doubts...
-- Sensei <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <pgp:8998A2DB> <icqnum:241572242> <yahoo!:sensei_sen> <msn-id:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
