Debian Common Core Alliance

[Mark Shuttleworth]

Matt Zimmerman wrote:

>On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 05:45:59PM +0100, Magnus Blomfelt wrote:
>  
>
>>What I'm saying is that having compatible versions of the kernel, libc and
>>gcc results in a higher level of source code compatibility.  Having
>>compatible versions of the kernel, libc and gcc is a strict requirement
>>for binary compatibility. Therefore having binary compatibility results in
>>a higher level of source code compatibility.
>>    
>>
>
>If we can agree that source compatibility is the important factor here, then
>binary compatibility is only interesting insofar as it implies source
>compatibility, and binary compatibility is far from the best method,
>overall, to provide for source compatibility.
>  
>
Guys... this is a bit of a round-about discussion now. I prefaced my
response to the initial question by saying that I really didn't want to
create a flame-fest, and I'm disappointed that the post has been blasted
around the media with headlines like "Shuttleworth says DCC is dead".
That's not what I've said. Magnus, I think you need to think carefully
what you mean by "binary compatibility". It's trickier than you might
think. For example, changing just one option in the kernel config can
result in incompatibility of binary kernel modules even where the same
source code *exactly* is used.

For now, I suggest we put this conversation to rest, because it's
turning into an "is, isn't, is, isn't" dialogue.

Mark