Dave Jones wrote:
> The same sort of attitude prevails in the kernel driver source code > as well. I've had to patch and rebuild the truecrypt driver several > times on new kernel releases, and not once has the change been anything > substantive about the driver model. Once again, it is all ticky-tak > junk like changing the name of a macro or routine because some moron > who had the power didn't like the old name and didn't care how much > work changing it foists off onto the rest of the world. If the truecrypt driver had been submitted upstream, it would continue working across API changes. Those 'morons' fix up all in-tree drivers when APIs change. Complaining about a lack of stable ABI here is completely pointless btw. Upstream isn't interested, and there's less than zero chance Fedora will adopt a set in stone ABI deviating from upstream.
So does that mean that maintaining compatibility with anything outside that kernel developers' direct control is hopeless? Should anyone who cares about that just switch to Solaris now?
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
