Linux too please

Posted Aug 29, 2005 21:45 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104)
In reply to: Linux too please by corbet
Parent article: Fedora: RFC: X.Org X11 modularization project - rpm package driver naming

I don't think 2.6 kernels are considered stable (meaning that the code is changing a lot, not that they don't work well). I'm very well aware of the changes in 2.6 kernels, as I have to update my drivers all the time. 2.6.13 required major changes in PCMCIA drivers (actually, I have to admit partial responsibility for them). On the other hand, 2.4 kernels have stabilized long time ago.

You make a good point about binary compatibility. Indeed, it was never promised by kernel developers, and it can be broken even in 2.0 series. I cannot imagine rpm allowing to upgrade some drivers from 2.4.30 with drivers from 2.4.31 without upgrading the kernel. On the other hand, upgrading some drivers from 2.4.31-1 to 2.4.31-2 should be OK, and thats up to the distributor to ensure.

I can imagine that binary compatibility will be promised for certain kernel series in the future (e.g. 2.4.x, 2.6.x.y) provided that .config is unchanged. But I'm not so optimistic about the main development branch.

After all, changing headers and removing obsolete API is a way to force drivers to change and to adopt a new way of doing things. It's a way to keep the code safe and working the way it should. If a driver doesn't compile, it needs updating.