Re: [INFO] Kernel strict versioning

["Franco \"Sensei\"" <senseiwa@tin.it>]

Horst von Brand wrote:
> > No I'm not confusing. As long as the .config has an influence on the 
> > makefiles I get different symbols names.
>
> Nope.

I don't understand. The .config drives the kernel build, I don't get XFS 
functions and names if I don't compile it. I have different symbol 
names... At least, that's what I understand... and that's what 
happens... Never the same names on different kernels.

> And kernels compiled with one compiler are different than those compiled
> with another. And if you have preemption they are different. Don't forget
> about clasic i386 vs i486 vs ... vs i686 (spinlocks generate different
> code!). Then let's consider memory split: 2/2, 3/1, 3.5/0.5, ... Now throw
> in assorted debugging options. On some architectures you have several
> possible (reasonable!) page sizes.

Yes, ok.

> Define "simple environment". Even Red Hat (they are /very/ interested in a
> single kernel image, as it cuts down testing and bug tracking etc!) ships
> half a dozen different kernels, tailored for different configurations. And
> you'll find external modules (like for NTFS) compiled separately for each
> of them.

Yes, but as long as you keep with the same configuration, no problem 
should arise in changing the kernel version.

> Or having /your/ standard kernel on all 100 machines, compile once and copy
> around. No need for /me/ to run your exact same configuration.

I probably expressed myself badly. I don't mean anyone having the same 
configuration... why on earth should it be?

> > Source compatibility is there.
>
> Sort of.

I hope! :)

> And A doesn't have some options I'd like, and others you loathe.

That's why you recompile, but why should you throw your other modules 
not included in the kernel release?

> >             creating the kernel with additions and patches, and 
> > distributing them. Modules .A should work on .B,
>
> Iff nothing changes. That isn't usually the case.

That's weird... why should things really change so drastically if the 
external interface still remains the same? It's probably a matter of 
abstraction...

> The problem is that giving that guarantee costs developer time and
> flexibility. The gain (given that source for recompilation is freely
> available) is so minuscule that the consensus is that it just isn't worth
> any extra hassle /at all/.

Ok.

> And the decision to design thusly is completely conscicious, it is not a
> random "it just turned out this way by mistake".
>
> > I just see advantages on ABI, and I think it's not bad talking about it...
>
> I see many disadvantages to ABI, and it wouldn't be bad to look at them too.

I'd really like to know... I'm naive? Yes :) Of course, other than 
``more work'', but technical disadvantages...

--
Sensei <mailto:senseiwa@tin.it> <pgp:8998A2DB>
       <icqnum:241572242>
       <yahoo!:sensei_sen>
       <msn-id:sensei_sen@hotmail.com>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature