Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262270AbVDLLh3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:37:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262359AbVDLLe6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:34:58 -0400 Received: from khc.piap.pl ([195.187.100.11]:1540 "EHLO khc.piap.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262270AbVDLL2l (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:28:41 -0400 To: Sensei Cc: Adrian Bunk , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [INFO] Kernel strict versioning References: <4256C89C.4090207@tin.it> <20050408190500.GF15688@stusta.de> <425B1E3F.5080202@tin.it> <20050412015018.GA3828@stusta.de> <425B3864.8050401@tin.it> From: Krzysztof Halasa Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:28:34 +0200 In-Reply-To: <425B3864.8050401@tin.it> (Franco's message of "Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:54:28 -0500") 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: 1586 Lines: 37 "Franco \"Sensei\"" writes: > Major kernel changes should probably result in major version > change... I'm supposing it. Of course, note that ABI can be achieved > stating that all the binaries must be compiled with the same gcc. It isn't enough. The same compiler and the same .config - yes. But that means you'd have no progress within, say, 2.6. Only bug fixes. There _is_ a tree like that - 2.6.11.Xs are only bugfixes. But remember that changing a single config option may make your kernel incompatible. You can't avoid that without making the kernel suboptimal for most situations - basically you'd have to disable non-SMP builds, disable (or permanently enable) 4KB pages etc. If you make a proprietary closed-sourse system (with kernel modules), you probably have to make the system suboptimal. But with open source there is a better alternative. > So, > the kernel module library could possibly be simply /lib/modules/2.6/. Asking for one modules dir only is similar to asking for only one /boot/vmlinuz-2.6 kernel file. > I'm probably (surely) not getting the point about this issue. It's not > that bad... I don't see awkward issues in guaranteeing 2.6, 2.8 and so > on compatibility with the ``major second number''. First, each 2.6.X would have to be binary-compatible with itself. -- Krzysztof Halasa - 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/