Franco "Sensei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>> 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. > > Ok, this adds a new information. Let me explain what I understand now. > > When a new component is added to the kernel, let's say support for a new > file system, a .config entry is created (CONFIG_MYFS=y|m). Why is this > entry breaking compatibility? I mean, symbols still remains the same. > The addition of symbols is not a breaking point. A kernel feature may require a different (bigger, slower, ...) internal data structure, which isn't desired unless you use that feature. Or it will change the semantics of some functions, e.g. functions being a noop (and optimized away) for uniprocessor with no highmem will do some important task on a SMP machine with 4 GB. >> Asking for one modules dir only is similar to asking for only one >> /boot/vmlinuz-2.6 kernel file. > > Quite the same, yes. You can still have different kernels of course! By > the way, another stupid curiosity is why /lib/modules instead of /boot? Boot vs. bootloader. The same reason that allows lilo.conf to be in /etc See http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ , too -- Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say: 81. The drive ate the tape but that's OK, I brought my screwdriver. Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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/
