[2498] in SIPB_Linux_Development
Re: Kernel interface changes (was Re: cdrecord problems on
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Cox)
Thu Feb 4 21:44:17 1999
From: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox)
To: warlord@MIT.EDU (Derek Atkins)
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 03:39:02 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: khim@sch57.msk.ru, arvinds@MIT.EDU, xiphmont@MIT.EDU,
alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu,
linux-dev@MIT.EDU, jered@MIT.EDU, nemo@MIT.EDU, cox@idecnet.com
In-Reply-To: <sjmzp6tbmrn.fsf@datkins.ihtfp.org> from "Derek Atkins" at Feb 4, 99 09:35:40 pm
> Khimenko Victor <khim@sch57.msk.ru> writes:
> > Why you must rebuild 1000's of client machines ? You should compile kernel
> > anyway to make upgrade -- why not compile all needed modules as well ????
>
> Because they don't have the source for those modules -- the company
> that created them have the source.
Thats an extreme situation though. I think everyone is happy about it for
binary compatibility at application levels. Juggling this kind of stuff to
suit IBM's own problems isn't trivial. I think people have a right to expect
2.2.* to run binaries identically (well barring bug fixes meaning they now
work right!) but at the module level its far from trivial.
Alan
