Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [INFO] Kernel strict versioning | From | Krzysztof Halasa <> | Date | Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:28:34 +0200 |
| |
"Franco \"Sensei\"" <senseiwa@tin.it> 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/
| |