From: Jens David (otnxz@tcnet.com.br)
Date: Tue Feb 01 2000 - 21:05:52 EET
Hi,
> > And not on dev-hams, either.
> I haven't noticed open subscribtion to dev-hams .. there are people who
> are interrested. Maybe just welcome message with BIG statement that one
> should not reply to things he doesn't understand or something would do ..
Could someone please enlighten me what dev-hams is?
> > They have to, at least the applications. User has a 2.2.x based
> > dist, upgrades to kernel 2.4.x. He's probably aware that he has to
> > upgrade system utilities. If at all. But breaking applications is a
> > different thing. Joe user will not understand why his formerly perfectly
> > running application suddenly fails.
Sorry that I have not replied soon to this. I was busy with my examns and
did not have much time lately. In addition to that I wanted to find out
about other peopleŽs opinions. As far as IŽm concerned, I think that
in the current stage of packet radio developent on linux we should not
bother with binary compatibility between with applications. AX.25 with
linux kernel has not yet reached even alpha software quality level -
*neither system*.
Joe user, aka people who are not able to recompile a package by cdŽing
into its directory and typing "make clean && make && make install" are
IMHO not suited for helping in the development process.
> > We should start phase out "struct sockaddr_ax25" now, BTW. We're
> > carrying this thing with us for too long now and I doubt any application
> > still uses it. I don't know if it even works nowadays.
> sockaddr_ax25 ?
> Programs use full_sockaddr_ax25 but sockaddr_ax25 is part of it. You mean
> removing it as a separate struct ?
Thats exacty what I mean. The API (including but not limited to the socket
interface) is far from being complete. Instead of caring about every possible
combination of application and sub-revision API we should sit together and
redesign that stuff once for all.
-- Jens
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 21:09:50 EET