Re: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff]

[Ragnar Hojland Espinosa]

On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 01:43:11PM -0800, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> At 11:58 AM 11/5/01 -0800, Jonathan Lundell wrote:
> >use of a version field. Rather than try to support all versions, use it to 
> >determine whether the two ends of the communication channel are 
> >compatible, and fail gracefully because of the incompatible version. Tell 
> >the user to update the app, or whatever.

[snip]

> And then there is the problem of who pays for my time to make the app 
> update.  I don't charge people for updates as a rule -- that rule may have 
> to change for my Linux apps if this ill-thought-out idea goes into the 
> kernel.  I expend enough effort trying to keep up with the crap coming out 

I hope you just don't mean the version number idea.  Because I don't see
reason for not, instead of adding a version number to every /proc file and
breaknig everything, adding all them to a /proc/proc-version file which 
would still let clients make some sanity checks.

-- 
____/|  Ragnar Højland      Freedom - Linux - OpenGL |    Brainbench MVP
\ o.O|  PGP94C4B2F0D27DE025BE2302C104B78C56 B72F0822 | for Unix Programming
 =(_)=  "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer for  | (www.brainbench.com)
   U     chaos and madness await thee at its end."