From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Erdfelt Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:16:42 +0000 Subject: Re: modutils 2.4.2, please test asap Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 23, 2001, Keith Owens wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:37:47 -0800, > Miles Lane wrote: > >Hey. Let's be fair here. Linus rejected your patch for reasons that > >had absolutely nothing to do with USB backport support issues. > > On the contrary. Linus rejected the patch because > > "I'd much rather just have the 2.4.0 behaviour, and no versioning. > Tell people that 2.4.0-test kernels won't work. They'll notice on > their own." > > and > > "The fact that such modutils binaries won't work with pre-2.4.0 > kernels is not even on my radar screen, quite frankly. There isn't > even an installed base of people using it, and I don't think anybody > of the developers using it are still using pre-kernels. In short, I > see absolutely no reason for even trying to maintain any backwards > compatibility in this area.". > > Because the USB maintainers did not want to support backwards > compatibility, Linus saw no need for the patch. Which is fine, if you > are happy to break backwards compatibility. It should be obvious that > I disagree strongly with this attitude. Just to clarify, I see no reason for supporting backwards compatibility with development kernels. I completely agree with Linus wrt to this decision. As for 2.2 kernels, that's a different matter. It's essentially a fork the 2.4 code which has been tracking changes and backporting them as necessary. Hotplugging is another whole ball of wax in 2.2. JE _______________________________________________ Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel