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