Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>
> ABI changes or ABI additions?
>
> If the ABI is not fixed that is a bug. Admittedly some interfaces
> in the development kernel are still under development and so have not
> stabilized on an ABI but that is a different issue.
>
ABI fixes and ABI additions, as well as outright ABI changes (yes they
suck, but they happen.)
>
>>ABI headers is the only realistic solution. We
>>can't realistically get real ABI headers for 2.5, so please don't just
>>break things randomly until then.
>
> As the ABI remains fixed I remain unconvinced. Multiple implementations
> against the same ABI should be possible. The real question which is the
> more scalable way to do the code.
The ABI doesn't remain fixed. Like everything else it evolves.
> What I find truly puzzling is that after years glibc still needs
> kernel headers at all.
What I find truly puzzling is that obviously intelligent people like
yourself still seem to think that ABIs remain fixed.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 23 2003 - 22:00:37 EST