From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Feb 27 15:20:28 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id PAA18454 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:20:28 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id PAA18442; Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:20:20 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.cdrom.com: Host localhost didn't use HELO protocol
To: Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility with NetBSD 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 27 Feb 95 15:09:34 GMT."
             <199502271509.PAA13996@deacon.cogsci.ed.ac.uk> 
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:20:13 -0800
Message-ID: <18431.793927213@freefall.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com>
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> So I don't understand why Jordan thinks it would be so hard; in
> particular I don't understand the comment that "it's easily broken
> (meaning you get stuck in this thankless loop of fixing it over and
> over again as the libraries themselvse change)".  Why would anything

I was referring more to an arrangement where we'd try to keep ONE set
of libraries compatible.  I agree that the prospect of simply
producing NetBSD/i386 and BSD/OS "compatability kits" holds much more
attraction for me than does trying to keep the libs in sync between
the two systems.  Not that I really have time either way, but it's
definitely an idea!

				Jordan