On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 01:48:57PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > > > > > Yes. But enough people build non-packaged kernels that it is not really > > fair to exclude them. Add to that the fact that the presence of a > > particular kernel image package in no way guarantees that it is that > > particular kernel that is running, and you it is plain that it is not > > necessary to depend on a particular kernel. > > This is true, and irrelevant: the presence of a packaged library version > does not in any way guarantee that the files from that will be the ones > picked up by the runtime loader, and so on and so forth for executables, > dynamic language modules, images etc. > It is quite relevant. If someone installs a library package and then changes the files, that is their own problem. You can also in many cases have multiple versions of a library available and have them all be usable simultaneously. With a kernel, you boot A and kernel B is no longer running or accessible. You boot B and A is no longer running or accessible. By accessible, I mean for runtime use. This is not true of a library. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature