* Binary modules for 2.6
@ 2003-09-03 3:40 Dumitru Stama
2003-09-03 15:58 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Dumitru Stama @ 2003-09-03 3:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Hello all
Everything i write in the next lines can be considered as a question
also since this is what i come to find out studying the latest 2.6
kernel.
With the current layout of the kernel modules there will be no way of
distributing binary kernel modules anymore. Considering the structures
that combine to describe the way module works and the alignement of
those depending on the processor type even if that processor is i386
compatible. Personally i think this is a good move for open source
community but what are we gona do with the proprietary drivers that do
not have the sources available ?
If i am mistaken by any chance please enlighten me.
Thanks
Dumitru Stama
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: Binary modules for 2.6
2003-09-03 3:40 Binary modules for 2.6 Dumitru Stama
@ 2003-09-03 15:58 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jan-Benedict Glaw @ 2003-09-03 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1845 bytes --]
On Wed, 2003-09-03 05:40:40 +0200, Dumitru Stama <dics@ecommerce.com>
wrote in message <123-216863213.20030903054040@ecommerce.com>:
> With the current layout of the kernel modules there will be no way of
> distributing binary kernel modules anymore. Considering the structures
No? If it were like this, I'd say I'd really like that:)
> that combine to describe the way module works and the alignement of
> those depending on the processor type even if that processor is i386
> compatible. Personally i think this is a good move for open source
Well, Linux aims towards source compatibility. If you want to ship
binary modules, you've got to do *lots* of compilation.
You've to compile for all and any large distributions, and additionally,
some people will ask you to compile with their very personal kernel tree
(thay might have added loads of patches) and their .config file.
> community but what are we gona do with the proprietary drivers that do
> not have the sources available ?
If it's like that, vendors of binary modules may face a lot of
recompilation then...
However, such things are usually done in another way. If you encounter
such situations, you'll write a binrary-only core module plus some glue
code which will compiled on the client's system. You hardcode your
binary interface, the customer compiles Linux' source-comparible
interface. That'll resolve the problem.
However, you see that it's a PITA to live with binary-only modules. It's
easier to release sources:)
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak!
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(IRAQ_WAR_2 | DRM | TCPA));
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-09-03 16:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-09-03 3:40 Binary modules for 2.6 Dumitru Stama
2003-09-03 15:58 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®