|From:||Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-osdl.org>|
|To:||Kay Sievers <kay.sievers-AT-suse.de>|
|Subject:||Re: 2.6.16-rc4: known regressions|
|Date:||Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:21:04 -0800|
|Cc:||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, johnstul-AT-us.ibm.com|
Kay Sievers <email@example.com> 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.
Copyright © 2006, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds