From: Daryll S. <da...@va...> - 2001-01-05 00:19:30
|
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 03:31:19PM -0800, Allen Akin wrote: > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 02:08:59PM -0800, Daryll Strauss wrote: > | ... Every time I've ever seen version numbers they were > | Major.Minor.Patch > | > | Major numbers are incremented when an incompatible change is made > | to the API. > | > | Minor numbers are incremented when an upward compatible change is > | made. IE, old drivers still work. New drivers only work with the > | new module. > | > | Patch numbers are incremented when bugs are fixed and no API > | changes are made. > > But this isn't true of the kernel, right? I was under the impression > that driver incompatibilities could arise when incrementing the minor > version number. For example, there's no guarantee that drivers for > 2.2 will work under 2.4. This is just our internal versioning system. This has nothing to do with the Linux kernel numbers. Our 3D drivers check that the version number of the kernel module is acceptable. That makes sure the user hasn't changed one and not the other. In fact, you may (probably will) have the exact same kernel module number available under both Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.2. As long as the API of the module is consistent it shouldn't matter to the 3D driver which OS version is underneath. When you backport the kernel module from 2.4 to 2.2 you don't want to have to change the 3D driver in the process. - |Daryll |