On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 13:01:22 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 09:06:42AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway
> On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 01:47 +0100, Jon Masters wrote:
> > I'm working on some to-be-proposed updates to the
> > packaging in Fedora Extras to allow us to track changes to the kernel
> > ABI rather than purely the kernel release/version. This should make
> > life easier and help to reduce the number of times that a minor kernel
> > update (e.g. security fixes, etc.) forces all external drivers to be
> > rebuilt.
> I'm not so sure this will work for Fedora. The ABI in the
> utterly inconsistent, and no work is being done upstream to try and keep
> the ABI consistent or predictable.
Sure. I understand. I guess what I'm saying is "look, you get this for
free, it requires no extra effort on the part of the packager, but it
may help reduce unnecessary updates". I understand the lack of a
kernel ABI in Fedora - whenever part of the ABI changes, the module
just becomes incompatible in its dependencies and you upgrade it in
the usual way.
I'd go as far as to say for Fedora, there *is no* kernel ABI,
is it practical to make one.
Ok. Well, given that it doesn't hurt packagers or make their lives
more difficult - isn't it worth making this available to them anyway?
I'm cool with whatever the Fedora community want.
P.S. This mail was hand munged via the archives, so it's going to
break threading - for some reason I'm not getting fedora-packaging
delivered directly right now even though I'm signed up. Will