Kay Sievers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > We broke back-compatibility. The changelog _failed to tell us_ that we
> > were breaking back-compatibility. The patch wouldn't have been applied if
> > we'd been told that. At least, not without a lot of careful thought.
> >
> > The fact that the changelog failed to tell us this makes one suspect that
> > the breakage was inadvertent.
> >
> >
> > So no, upgrading HAL is not a good answer. Please fix the kernel.
>
> [ bunch of special-pleading ]
>
None of that matters or is relevant.
You took a kernel interface which was present in 2.6.10, 2.6.11, 2.6.12,
2.6.13, 2.6.14 and 2.6.15 and changed it in a non-compatible way, without
telling us that it was non-compatible and without even notifying people
that we'd gone and broken existing userspace.
We. Don't. Do. That.
Please either restore the old events so we can have a 6-12 month transition
period or revert the patch.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
