From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Mar 11 12:26:23 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id MAA11781
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:26:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id MAA11774
          Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:26:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from julian@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.7.3/8.6.9) id MAA15472; Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:25:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199603112025.MAA15472@ref.tfs.com>
Subject: Re: Native & Linux ELF support finally there...
To: sos@freebsd.org
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:25:33 -0800 (PST)
From: "JULIAN Elischer" <julian@ref.tfs.com>
Cc: jehamby@lightside.com, current@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199603111731.SAA00731@DeepCore.dk> from "sos@freebsd.org" at Mar 11, 96 06:31:31 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25 ME8b]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Hmm, depends, from a general viewpoint I'd say no, but....
> If that library don't use any systemcalls directly, but only accesses
> them through libc, and we have them in our libc, it might work.
> Otherwise its a sure failuremode, as one binary can only have one
> systemcall structure (sysentvec), and there is no easy way to change
> that.
so what are the chages that the libc's are compatible?
My guess is about 0%.. 
just constants to syscalls are probably different enough..
let alone real semantic differences