Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261803AbUDTKXk (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Apr 2004 06:23:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262545AbUDTKXk (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Apr 2004 06:23:40 -0400 Received: from mail.dsa-ac.de ([62.112.80.99]:43526 "EHLO k2.dsa-ac.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261803AbUDTKXj (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Apr 2004 06:23:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:23:36 +0200 (CEST) From: Guennadi Liakhovetski To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Linux Kernel Development Subject: Re: [somewhat OT] binary modules agaaaain In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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: 979 Lines: 30 On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, 19 Apr 2004, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > A binary module is "considered good" if > > And for which architectures do they have to provide the binary-only part? 22 > and still counting... They don't have to. Otherwise, I guess, for those they want their modules to work on. Again, I am not saying: "under this conditions binary modules will be most welcome in Linux and will be absolutely beneficial". I am just saying, one could try to impose something like this to try to better handle those evil things. If at all... Thanks Guennadi --------------------------------- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. DSA Daten- und Systemtechnik GmbH Pascalstr. 28 D-52076 Aachen Germany - 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/