Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 15:32:24 -0400 From: Josef 'Jeff' Sipek <jeffpc@josefsipek.net> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: COMPAT_FREEBSD<ancient> Message-ID: <aMsMyHevBpAraa2m@hvm> In-Reply-To: <aMlg8FWoZCe5ibam@kib.kiev.ua> References: <aMlZu48yxBX0k6Pe@satis> <aMlg8FWoZCe5ibam@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 16:06:56 +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 08:36:11AM -0400, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote: ... > > Which brings up a question - at what point does it make sense to remove some > > of this code? > Never. Fair enough. > > IIUC, this code falls well outside the current policy around > > ABI compatibility. > How so? > > > So the only thing that the removal of these compat > > layers should affect is source compatibility, but since this compat code is > You do not understand what ABI compat is. Sorry, I rushed when I wrote my email and goofed. (1) I meant to say binary compat not ABI compat, and (2) I conflated the ports policy with all of FreeBSD. Not that it matters since this removal isn't happening :) > > about syscalls (at least according to sys/conf/NOTES) any code still using > > these interfaces would have to explicitly invoke these compat syscalls and > > not their new replacements. IOW, this should be a vanishingly small number > > of programs. (As an additional data point, on amd64 GENERIC defines all of > > them but MINIMAL starts with COMPAT_FREEBSD10.) > > We do run FreeBSD 1.0 binaries on HEAD, with the right config. I do not see > a reason to break this. Interesting! Out of curiosity, what kind of programs are these? Jeff.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aMsMyHevBpAraa2m>