On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 09:47:25PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2000 at 11:57:00AM +0200, Jens David wrote:
> > Of cause the new kernel needs new tools which will not work with
> > the old kernel. Thatīs why I released seperate distributions. I
>
> OK, just so I know when to expect the torrent of emails saying their
> setup doesn't work are you telling me that a standard 2.2.14 kernel
> does not work with the plain vanilla ax25 tools or apps?
The latest Debian versions are working just fine for me, with exactly
kernel 2.2.14. I really appreciate your efforts getting that in there,
Craig. And I'd feel quite comfortable with those versions being in a
stable Debian release. The new node features are especially nice -
I don't have to feel quite so inferior to all the NOS stations anymore.
Likewise it's perfectly fine that when using a 2.0 kernel, one has to
use the older ax.25 stuff. I can understand that sometimes a break from
the past must happen in order for progress to be made. The old stuff
worked well enough that there wasn't much need to continue development
on it just to fix bugs. It was time to add features instead.
Now, what is going on with Jens' new code? I think that if you are going
to follow the same version numbering convention, then you'd better keep
it compatible with 2.2.14, because 2.4 is not out yet, let alone 2.5/2.6.
The old scheme of numbering ax.25-stuff releases (tracking the kernel
release numbers) made sense, even though it was a frequenty-asked newbie
question...but if you're not going to do that, then for crying out loud,
at least make a new major version number when you go off in a new and
incompatible direction. Performance is important to me, but knowing which
version to install to easily get it working with any given kernel is way
more important.
I'm speaking here as an old user, since 1994 or 1995; not a developer
(yet). However I am interested in application development so having some
API consistency would seem to be important too. Again, if you go off in
an incompatible new direction you should start a new major version. And
continue fixing bugs in the previous version too, just like what is done
with the kernel (2.2 bugs have been fixed continuously while 2.3 was
being developed). I'm a CVS admin where I work, and I would make a
branch for this sort of thing.
> Checking at compile time for what sort of system you are running is just
> a totally bad idea. You do understand that the various distributions
> distribute binaries, ie they are compilied once?
I agree.
>
> Aiee, please call them (ax25-utils and libax25-2) something else. The
> first is evil because people will get confused about which package you
> are talking about, the second because there will be confusion again
> but also it has a wierd name format that plays havoc with packagers.
Changing the naming scheme too often is not a good idea. Seems like
Debian usually splits things up as much as possible though, so that's
consistent with having the libs separate from the applications. And
Debian also handles upgrades much better when the number and names of
the packages stay the same. So I think I'd vote for leaving it alone.
But get it onto a 1.0 release track, and then start a 1.1 branch for
experimental stuff.
What I'd like to see next is a Debian package for FBB...if that's even
possible with 2.2 kernels. :-)
--
_______ Shawn T. Rutledge / KB7PWD [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(_ | |_) http://www.bigfoot.com/~ecloud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__) | | \________________________________________________________________
Get money for spare CPU cycles at http://www.ProcessTree.com/?sponsor=5903
