Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:40:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:40:58 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.137]:58375 "EHLO smtpzilla1.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:40:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:49:37 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: Horst von Brand cc: Rusty Russell , Kai Germaschewski , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Module alias and device table support. In-Reply-To: <200302040805.h1485lhI002898@eeyore.valparaiso.cl> Message-ID: References: <200302040805.h1485lhI002898@eeyore.valparaiso.cl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 975 Lines: 24 Hi, On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Horst von Brand wrote: > People > backward compatibility and minimal upgrading pain (to get your random BOFH > to recompile a kernel is _not_ trivial today!) is much more important than > code backward compatibility, IMHO. [I'm speaking from the perspective of > the user/sysadmin, _not_ the kernel hacker here]. I can only agree and I hope more people realize the importance of this. My main problem with the module fiasco are the complete new user space tools. I urge anyone who only cares a little bit about modules to compare modules.conf(5) with modprobe.conf(5) and to tell me whether _all_ the removed options are really unnecessary? What happened to deprecating features _first_? bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/