Hello, Noah, you are absolutely right. And about this, do you know if there is any kind of propousal in this theme about a standard for how to distribute and install modules that aren't in the kernel source code? How to create a task from this subject? I tried to look at the linuxbase pages but i could't find anything...
thank you. Pedro Bueno Noah Romer wrote: > On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Pedro Bueno wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I think that enabling the linux kernel option CONFIG_MODVERSIONS, in some > > kind, > > helps to deals with some modules since it makes the modules less dependent > > on > > the kernel version. And there is another aspect that should be observed, > > that > > is in user side. Planning a standard to kernel modules, we could have a > > execellent choice to developers, as well to users, since, nowadays each > > module > > developer create his own way to provide it, some uses rpm, some tar.gz, bz2, > > with pure .c files with inside instructions to compile, or with Makefiles > > files... > > So , if there is no plan to create a standard for this issue, we really > > should > > have a effort to create a propousal to it here in LSB. > > > > Pedro Bueno > > It seems like the two of you are talking about separate things. If I'm not > mistaken, Pedro, you're talking about a standard for how to distribute and > install modules that aren't in the kernel source code tarballs and David, > you're talking about a standard interface in the kernel for driver writers > to hook into. I don't know much about Pedro's suggestion, although it > seems like it would fit w/in the concept of the LSB. > > As far as the kernel interface standard, David, have you taken a look at > the linux-kernel mailing list archives? > http://kt.linuxcare.com/kernel-traffic/index.epl provides summaries of the > major threads each week and well as links to the actuall messages. This is > a subject that comes up w/ some frequency on linux-kernel (and certainly > seems beyond the scope of the LSB). If this is what you're talking about, > you might find the discussions that have already taken place enlightening. > > > "Howell, David P" wrote: > > > > > To add in my 2 cents, specifically is there a standard planned or in the > > > works > > > for loadable or statically linked in kernel drivers and subsystems? I'm > > > new > > > here > > > but come from a System 5/SVR4 background where there was a DDI/DKI > > > standard > > > for > > > drivers that defined a set of kernel interfaces that a driver writer could > > > assume > > > was always going to be there in a kernel, with the same semantics across > > > different > > > architectures. This permitted VARs with kernel components in their > > > applications > > > to code their drivers and subsystems once and not have to recode for each > > > release. > > > > > > Linux has application standards moving ahead for LSB, but I'm told that > > > there is > > > no such plan for a kernel driver/subsystem/module standard in LSB, and > > > this > > > seems > > > contradictory. Here at Intel we ran into an issue with a driver that is > > > produced > > > by an Intel group being useful for only one release of a distribution > > > (i.e. > > > Red > > > Hat 6.2) but could not be used with the previous point release (6.1) due > > > to > > > module > > > versioning. I can't say for sure that there weren't internal kernel > > > changes > > > that > > > make this necessary, but it calls out for a driver/subsystem/module > > > standard > > > that > > > would at least allow a driver to work between point releases, as well as > > > possibly > > > extending compatibility to multiple vendor distributions running the same > > > kernel > > > major/minor version. > > > > > > Seems that if Linux is to capture more applications, part of this will > > > have > > > to > > > include applications with kernel code in them. To not extend LSB to > > > include > > > this > > > seems like an obvious mistake. Are their plans for this type of standard, > > > or > > > could > > > there be? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Pedro Bueno [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 2:03 PM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Modules Standard. > > > > > > Hello, > > > does anyone know if there is any kind of work in specification proposal > > > to create Linux Modules. I mean, items like, for example, just rpm > > > files, or Makefiles, or pre-compiled binaries... > > > Thank you, > > > Pedro Bueno > > > > > > -- > > > Mr. Pedro Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bestlinux.net > > > SOT Finnish Software Engineering Ltd. http://www.sot.com > > > Narva mnt. 7A, 10117, TALLINN , ESTONIA GSM: +372 53946419 > > > > > > -- > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > -- > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- > > Mr. Pedro Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bestlinux.net > > SOT Finnish Software Engineering Ltd. http://www.sot.com > > Narva mnt. 7A, 10117, TALLINN , ESTONIA GSM: +372 53946419 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Noah Romer |"Everyone is more or less mad on one point." > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - Rudyard Kipling > PGP key available | > by finger or email | > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Mr. Pedro Bueno [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bestlinux.net SOT Finnish Software Engineering Ltd. http://www.sot.com Narva mnt. 7A, 10117, TALLINN , ESTONIA GSM: +372 53946419
