Re: Death of KERN_JAVA_* sysctl

david parsons (o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s)
11 Jul 1999 11:31:36 -0700

In article <linux.kernel.19990711110904.I26181@pointer.teuto.de>,
Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb@teuto.net> wrote:
>On 1999-07-10T16:46:47,
> Nate Eldredge <nate@cartsys.com> said:
>
>> I'm not complaining that Java support was removed, but I do think that
>> the constants should have been left in. That way a program can deal
>> with it at runtime (sysctl will fail) instead of not being able to
>> compile.
>
>I disagree violently. Why should the kernel headers pretend that a feature is
>supported and then fail at runtime when we already know at compile time it
>won't work?

Backwards and forwards compatability.

If there are some kernels out there that support those functions, and
some that don't, the sensible solution is NOT to recompile the code for
each of those kernels, but to have each kernel tell the code what they
support and what they don't support.

____
david parsons \bi/ This is NOT rocket science here.
\/

-
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/