Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:42:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: COMPAT_IA32 renamed COMPAT_FREEBSD32 Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1003221538260.10584@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20100322.130939.70320533309323962.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20100312171758.GB31089@dragon.NUXI.org> <20100312.125032.270969355930630649.imp@bsdimp.com> <20100322185331.GA88847@dragon.NUXI.org> <20100322.130939.70320533309323962.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ Some CC's stripped ] On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, M. Warner Losh wrote: > P.S. I think that there's much traction to the idea of moving from > COMPAT_FREEBSDx to some other variable called, for example, > COMPAT_FREEBSD_BACK_TO=x, which will give compatibility for binaries > as old as FreeBSD x.0, and have all the other magic handled behind the > scenes. This would render the inconsistency with COMPAT_FREEBSDx part > of the debate completely moot. Doesn't matter. We're still use to COMPAT_FREEBSDx since it's been here so long. So regardless if you rename them to COMPAT_FREEBSD_BACK_TO=x, it is still potentially confusing. COMPAT_ARCH32 and all other choices David mentions seem like much better names - even if there wasn't any existing COMPAT_FREEBSDx knobs. My $0.02. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.1003221538260.10584>