Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 04:37:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 04:37:16 -0500 Received: from smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl ([194.109.127.141]:57356 "EHLO smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 04:37:15 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:46:15 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@serv To: Kai Germaschewski cc: Russell King , Greg KH , Rusty Russell , Horst von Brand , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Restore module support. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: 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: 1023 Lines: 26 Hi, On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Kai Germaschewski wrote: > So you have the choice of either sticking to the solution which was > previously used (only that it's now done in the kernel, not in modutils), > or doing something new and more efficient. Where is the problem to do the "new and more efficient" in modutils? > Now, what's the reason you're not happy with that? You've got more > flexibility than before, and you can even switch between different ways > without having to teach an external package about it, so you avoid the > compatibility issues when kernel and modutils are not in sync. Where is the problem with updating user space tools? We should certainly reduce dependencies, but moving everything into the kernel source can't be the answer either. 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/