Re: Path to kmods

[Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost>]

der mouse wrote:

> The first example that comes to mind?  In 2.0, 1.x executables that
> depended on executing out of the stack broke.  On purpose.
> 
> Or, at least, non-executable stack was on purpose; it's possible that
> the failure to provide backward compatability was a result of someone
> not thinking of something rather than conscious choice.  Certainly
> nobody seemed too concerned about the lack of compatability when I
> tracked it down, though.

Why didn't you object removal of sh5 and pc532?

Consider tradeoff if you can't help us or yourself.
We can't be so perfect.

Now you seems a critic, not a developer or user.
What's your purpose on this thread?
You are always beating changes you don't like
without positive proposal or actual work.
---
Izumi Tsutsui