From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Feb 26 12:49:43 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id MAA04135 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 26 Feb 1995 12:49:43 -0800 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id MAA04129 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 1995 12:49:42 -0800 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA04526; Sun, 26 Feb 95 13:41:38 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9502262041.AA04526@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: Binary compatibility with NetBSD To: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 95 13:41:38 MST Cc: jbeukema@hk.super.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199502260337.UAA00267@trout.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Feb 25, 95 08:37:11 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > To not maintain binary compatability *including* shared images would > > > be folly. > > > > Bravo! I agree completely. We do not need one more fragmented, > > incompatible flavour. > > I'm certain that Jordan would be willing to let you do all the work > required to keep the differnt OS's libraries in sync with the FreeBSD > versions. I suspect it would only amount to 4-6 hours/day on the avg. > guaranteeing there are no inconsitancies and making sure the changes > made don't break anything. > > Those who 'agree' must also be willing to put in the time necessary to > make those agreements happen. Far be it for me to be the one to blindly suggest that either NetBSD or FreeBSD give up control of libc to one camp or another. Especially now that NetBSD's libc is 64bit clean and FreeBSD's is not. Is this is technical issue (if so, what are the pro's and con's) or is this nothing but a control issue? Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.