From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Dec 19 13:53:13 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA09244
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 13:53:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from haywire.DIALix.COM (peter@haywire.DIALix.COM [192.203.228.65])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA09239
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 13:53:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from peter@localhost) by haywire.DIALix.COM (sendmail) id FAA04963; Wed, 20 Dec 1995 05:52:46 +0800 (WST)
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 05:52:46 +0800 (WST)
From: Peter Wemm <peter@haywire.DIALix.COM>
To: gpalmer@westhill.cdrom.com
cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: SPRY Safety Server for BSDI 
In-Reply-To: <5785.819409657@westhill.cdrom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.951220055130.5341B-100000@haywire.DIALix.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 19 Dec 1995 gpalmer@westhill.cdrom.com wrote:
> 
> Peter Wemm wrote in message ID
> <4b77u3$142$1@haywire.DIALix.COM>:
> > I've just implemented binary compatability for BSD/OS 2.0 in -current
> > about a week or so ago..  That might not be much help for you if you
> > are using 2.1 though...
> 
> Would anyone object to this change being brought onto the 2.1 branch?
> It sounds like it wouldn't be a `risky' change, and also is a win.

Maybe, but not yet.. Lets find out if there's something that I've missed 
first...

-Peter

> Gary
>