Changing kernel API / Breaking VirtualBox - update criteria violation?

[Till Maas]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:21:40PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:

> We have considered it.  A really long time ago.  At that time, it was
> decided that we consider out-of-tree modules to be something we don't
> support, don't care about, and won't hold up updates for because of
> the aforementioned heavier considerations of fixing bugs.  So, with
> that phrasing in mind, everything is compliant with what you're saying
> about the updates policy.

Nevertheless it would have been nice to mention that the kernel update
will actually break the VirtualBox kernel module in it's update notes as
it seems to me that a lot of people knew it and even the problematic
change was mentioned in the update's feedback.

> Maybe now this thread can end, because it's really not accomplishing
> anything at all.  If we wanted to sit around and practice
> wordsmithing, there are much better places and topics to do it with.

What about this suggestion by Josh Stone? This seems to be a good result
from the discussion:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-November/159818.html
| On 11/22/2011 09:51 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
| > -#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(3, 1, 0)
| 
| It may have be helpful for the faked 2.6.4x kernels to still present a
| 3ish LINUX_VERSION_CODE.  AFAIK, faking the number is for the benefit of
| userspace, not any kernel module.  Perhaps it's not too late?

Regards
Till