From owner-freebsd-current Thu Jul 31 10:19:37 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA21657 for current-outgoing; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 10:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA21648 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 10:19:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rover.village.org [127.0.0.1] by rover.village.org with esmtp (Exim 1.60 #1) id 0wtysb-0002kb-00; Thu, 31 Jul 1997 11:19:13 -0600 To: Michael Smith Subject: Re: core group topics Cc: chuckr@glue.umd.edu (Chuck Robey), jkh@time.cdrom.com, freebsd-current@freefall.freebsd.org In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 31 Jul 1997 17:12:10 +0930." <199707310742.RAA27102@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> References: <199707310742.RAA27102@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 11:19:13 -0600 From: Warner Losh Message-Id: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In message <199707310742.RAA27102@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Michael Smith writes: : > compatibly. How about we move the discussion from "ignore" stage to an : > enumeration of possible transition problems, so that last problems can be : > solved? I don't honestly think they're all that bad, myself. : : Er, we've been doing this on -hackers the last couple of days. 8) Yes. I'd like to reiterate that it might be time to integrate the ELF kit into the tree, but require (for now) a DOELF=yes in /etc/make.conf. This would allow for even easier experimentation and might make it easier to identify the transition issues involved. ELF kit could also be back ported to 2.2. It might be sensible to have DOELF=no in 2.2 and yes in 3.0. What are the issues with old systems anyway? I thought we had ELF support in the kernel already... Would we need a compatelf package for 2.2 much like we have compat10, et al? Warner