Re: kernel-2.6

On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 11:11:14PM +0100, Bernd Porr wrote:
> Yes, I read it. However, it contradicts a bit with the last but one 
> paragraph where you say that it should be no problem to handle kernel 
> 2.6 modules. As a non native a need a bit more clearer expressions. 
> Maybe you could simply say what's going on.


I said:
> Agreed.  I did a lot of work on this a few weeks ago as part of
> a transition to using automake, but never checked it in because
> it never fully worked (and wasn't even remotely well-tested.)

"I did a bunch of work to replace the system."

> There's nothing fundamentally difficult with supporting 2.6-style
> kernel modules in the existing makefiles, however, I certainly
> don't want to touch the steaming pile (which was derived from
> Linux-2.2.17).

"It could be possible to continue to use the existing system,
but I hate it."

> That system has lasted so long because it is
> nearly bug free on 11 architectures, 3 kernel series, a variety
> of random kernel configuration options, cross-compilation, and
> voodoo linker flags.  Any potential replacement system will need
> to meet those requirements before being considered.

"A replacement system is a hard problem."

The last paragraph was specifically written to encourage people
not to blindly start proposing fixes without understanding the
problem and/or complain that a solution doesn't exist yet.



dave...

Received on 2003-08-04Z21:55:43