On Sun, Jul 10, 2005 at 12:56:52AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote: > > Am I understanding you correctly when I read it as saying that kernel 2.6.12 > (a point release in the "stable" branch)
There is no more "stable" or "development" kernel branches anymore, haven't been for quite some time. So this statement is false. > is making an incompatible change to the udev interface, No, udev had a bug that caused it to not work as well as it should in 2.6.12, it was not a kernel problem. > requires an upstream udev version which will not work on relatively > recent kernels (2.6.8 etc.) Not true again, the current udev will work just fine on older kernels. > and (from info elsewhere) simultaneously drops support for devfs (to > which people just finished migrating their locally written scripts > ...)? devfs has just been removed from the main kernel tree. If you all are just starting to add support for it, you are all pointless behind the times. In the future, please get your facts straight before complaining. > If this is correct, It is not. > then this is the third such self-incompatible kernel change in the > last few months. The two others were a security patch that broke > modules compiled from the same kernel source (due to careless touching > of header files), and an ALSA user space library that could not > simultaneously support kernel 2.6.8 and kernel 2.6.10. These were "incompatible" changes that happened to kernel.org kernels? Have you told the kernel developers about them? greg k-h -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
