Bug#518412: linux-2.6 install errors due to incompatible depmod files [was Re: Bug#518412: initramfs-tools: must support relative paths in modules.dep ]
On Thursday 19 March 2009, Jon Masters wrote:
[...]
I understand how and why and when it works now. I can also easily avoid
the problem now that I know about it. The question here is if the
breakage is really necessary.
I ran into the problem within days of installing the new m-i-t. I don't
think I'm very special, so my guess is it's going to affect others too.
> I guess it's called progress ;) Sarcasm aside, if you can give me an
> example of an actual real life set of users who are adversely affected
> then I'll try to do something to help out. But if you're asking for old
> versions of software to be compatible with newer releases in every case
> I think you're not being terribly realistic. The kernel changes to make
> progress, and so do other utilities.
No, sorry. That isn't, at least AIUI, how kernel (related) development is
supposed to be done: http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/29/173 and similar
discussions later.
Sure, if there are very strong reasons to break things, fine. But whenever
possible the kernel has ensured backwards compatibility, mostly only
_after_ someone "complained". Think of the i386 and x86_64 symlinks after
the x86 integration, think of the COMPAT_SYSFS flags, think of optional
support for old /proc files, think feature-removal-schedule.txt.
So far you seem to be avoiding to give the reasons for the change. What
would be so wrong with ensuring the compatibility for some transition
period and avoiding the problem?
P.S. Thanks a lot for your prompt replies. I do appreciate the discussion.
Reply to: