|| ||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org>|
|| ||Kay Sievers <kay.sievers-AT-suse.de>|
|| ||Re: 2.6.16-rc4: known regressions|
|| ||Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:21:04 -0800|
|| ||penberg-AT-cs.helsinki.fi, gregkh-AT-suse.de, bunk-AT-stusta.de,
rml-AT-novell.com, torvalds-AT-osdl.org, linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org,
Kay Sievers <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 post comments)