On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 11:18:36AM +0200, Zolt?n HUBERT wrote: > I'm a system engineer, and a "stable" system is one where > the interfaces are stable. Individual components can > change, and do change, but if you change fundamental > interfaces it is not the same system. Of course I > understand that "sometimes" fundamental things have to > change, but here "sometimes" is the keyword. If its > "anytime" it simply is no stable system. And yes, designing > and maintaining interfaces is a very difficult job.
What makes you think that module interfaces _exist_? Over the years we'd got a pile of exports. Maybe 5-10% of it could form several more or less sane interfaces. And that's being very optimistic. But try to get those interfaces and guess who'll scream bloody murder? That's right, the 3rd-party module developers. The same people who presumably want stability. Because all that dreck had been exported on someone's requests. > I don't remember how it was during 2.4 and before, but I > find it very suspicious that SuSE and RedHat only provide > 2.6.10 and 2.6.9 for their OS. It looks as if THEY didn't > trust 2.6.x to be a replacement to 2.6.y Eh? Funny, but in the next xterm I've got an ssh session to RHEL-5 box. 2.6.18+many backported patches... FC is simply following mainline, but that's a separate story... > And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of > stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable > kernel to be a drop-in replacement for an older stable > kernel (from the same series), while development kernels > need time to stabilise with the new whizz-bang-pfouit stuff > that you all so nicely add. "Drop-in" in which sense? That out-of-tree modules keep working? Not really... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
