Re: [PATCH] make uselib configurable (was Re: uselib() & 2.6.X?)

[David Lang]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Barry K. Nathan wrote:

> > People always claim that Linux is good in preserving binary compatibility.
> > Don't know how true that was, but introducing such config options doesnt
> > help.
>
> Binary compatibility is good to have, but it isn't everything in life.
> *Optionally* breaking compatibility with certain types of old binaries
> doesn't seem so bad to me. People who want binary compatibility can have
> it, and people who don't need it can choose to not install the old code
> on their systems.

we already allow people to not support a.out formats, this breaks binary 
compatability (probably much more severely then this does)

however we do need to be very sure that if any call is dropped as being 
obsolete it really is not likly to be used (see all the recent flames 
about people dropping (or proposing dropping) features out of the kernel 
for examples of what not to mark obsolete)

David Lang

--
There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies.
 -- C.A.R. Hoare
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/