On 9/24/07, Bryan Sant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/24/07, Brian Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This brings up another grip of mine. Kernel modules that must be > rebuild > > whenever the kernel is updated. Especially when those updates are minor > > version changes (probably bug fixes). There are lots of ways to make > this > > smoother for end users. Why are the kernel people living in the dark > ages > > on this? > > > > Brian > > Because Linus Torvalds does not believe (and strongly defends) that > binary compatibility is a hindrance not a help. I TOTALLY disagree. > I understand that not worrying about maintaining a backwards > compatible ABI can make life a little easier for kernel developers who > want to implement new features, but it's a nightmare for end uses who > just want their kernel modules to work. This is the main reason I > have any interest in Solaris/OpenSolaris. 10+ years and they've never > broken the ABI. Does anyone know if *BSD has a stable ABI? > > -Bryan
Mr Torvalds views could still be adhered to but in a more user friendly manner. Simply specify a versioning system where interface changes are accounted for in the version number. That way your module does not have to be rebuilt until the interface version number changes. It is a common practice when using COM or XPCOM. It works really well. Brian /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
