brianhks at activeclickweb.com
Mon Sep 24 14:04:40 MDT 2007
On 9/24/07, Bryan Sant <bryan.sant at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/07, Brian Hawkins <brianhks at activeclickweb.com> wrote:
> > This brings up another grip of mine. Kernel modules that must be
> > whenever the kernel is updated. Especially when those updates are minor
> > version changes (probably bug fixes). There are lots of ways to make
> > smoother for end users. Why are the kernel people living in the dark
> > 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?
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.
More information about the PLUG