Re: [INFO] Kernel strict versioning

["Bodo Eggert <harvested.in.lkml@posting.7eggert.dyndns.org>" <7eggert@gmx.de>]

Franco "Sensei" <senseiwa@tin.it> wrote:
> Krzysztof Halasa wrote:

>> It isn't enough. The same compiler and the same .config - yes. But that
>> means you'd have no progress within, say, 2.6. Only bug fixes.
>> There _is_ a tree like that - 2.6.11.Xs are only bugfixes.
> 
> Ok, this adds a new information. Let me explain what I understand now.
> 
> When a new component is added to the kernel, let's say support for a new
> file system, a .config entry is created (CONFIG_MYFS=y|m). Why is this
> entry breaking compatibility? I mean, symbols still remains the same.
> The addition of symbols is not a breaking point.

A kernel feature may require a different (bigger, slower, ...) internal data
structure, which isn't desired unless you use that feature. Or it will
change the semantics of some functions, e.g. functions being a noop (and
optimized away) for uniprocessor with no highmem will do some important
task on a SMP machine with 4 GB.

>> Asking for one modules dir only is similar to asking for only one
>> /boot/vmlinuz-2.6 kernel file.
> 
> Quite the same, yes. You can still have different kernels of course! By
> the way, another stupid curiosity is why /lib/modules instead of /boot?

Boot vs. bootloader. The same reason that allows lilo.conf to be in /etc

See http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ , too
-- 
Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say:
81. The drive ate the tape but that's OK, I brought my screwdriver.

Friß, Spammer: etfxEdqwnm@good4her.info tech@prancegood.com