Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 09:28:42 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@freefall.cdrom.com> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: terryl@CS.Stanford.EDU, freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: Binary compatibility with NetBSD Message-ID: <15825.793733322@freefall.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 26 Feb 95 01:27:50 %2B1100." <199502251427.BAA23726@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> All bets are off anyway. The runtime combination of a foreign application > and foreign shared libries is not very different from the same foreign > application linked statically. Foreign syscalls, foreign ioctls, foreign > database, ... won't work in either case. Well, compatability on these levels is something we should still be striving for. Compatible syscalls (or specialized tables loaded in when NetBSD/BSDI binaries are run), ioctls, etc. Becoming incompatible with BSDI would be a serious mistake. I'm not all that worried about being compatible with NetBSD (it's a goal, just a much lower priority one) since they don't really have many (or any) applications we're interested in running. The same is most definitely not true of BSDI. I don't know what I'd do without my netscape! :-) Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15825.793733322>