On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 09:11:04AM -0500, Kev wrote:
> we're not talking about going from 2.0 to 2.2; we're talking about going
> from 2.0.33 to 2.0.34.
Perhaps you are, but other people have been complaining about things
changing between 2.0.x and 2.2.x, and between 2.1.x and 2.1.y.
> In the past, many changes have been made which
> have broken binary compatibility without warning and without good reason.
> *THIS MUST NOT CONTINUE HAPPENING* if Linux expects to get anywhere.
I'm a little curious, how many times have this happened actually? So
far all examples I've seen have are the same ioctl padding change
hashed over and over again. A change that looks more like a mistake to
me than a deliberate design change. (that is, the a new ioctl should
have been used, and the old one kept for compatibility at least for
the 2.0.x series, a method that has been used before, IIRC.) Mistakes
are bad enough, but it's not the same thing as doing arbitrary design
changes.
/Robert T.
--
Robert Th�rncrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mundus Vult Decipi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
