From owner-freebsd-questions  Sun Jun 18 12:16:21 1995
Return-Path: questions-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id MAA27676
          for questions-outgoing; Sun, 18 Jun 1995 12:16:21 -0700
Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA27670
          for <questions@freebsd.org>; Sun, 18 Jun 1995 12:16:16 -0700
Received: by haven.uniserve.com id <30744>; Sun, 18 Jun 1995 12:17:10 +0100
Date: 	Sun, 18 Jun 1995 12:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Samplonius <tom@uniserve.com>
To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
cc: questions@freebsd.org, leisner@sdsp.mc.xerox.com
Subject: Re: bringing up freebsd
In-Reply-To: <199506181004.TAA17891@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950618121537.4912B-100000@haven.uniserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: questions-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 18 Jun 1995, Michael Smith wrote:

> >   2.0R binaries will not work with 2.0.5R kernel.
> 
> This is misleading.  In the context of the original question ("can I
> run a 2.0.5 kernel on top of a 2.0R system"), it's correct, as much
> changed between 2.0 and 2.0.5, but one certainly _can_ run 2.0 binaries
> under 2.0.5 (hence the compat20 package).

  As long as you don't mind a system utils dumping core.  As an example, 
swapinfo from a 4-12 snapshot will core dump on a 2.0.5R system.

Tom