> modules, but as I'm not a big believer in stable binary interfaces anyway
> (binary modules are quite problematic as it is), I actually much prefer to
> tell people that they have to recompile their modules if they change the
> type of their kernel.
This is actually something for the Makefile and config hackers to ponder
actually: being able to pack a 2.4 extra module as source so that the
end user (or their rpm, dpkg, slp,... tools) can type Make and the Make
script can grab all the needed config from the kernel .config and module
syms that are already present
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:30 EST