From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jun  7 19:59:20 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id TAA28332
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 19:59:20 -0700
Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA28326
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 19:59:14 -0700
Received: (from julian@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id TAA05179; Wed, 7 Jun 1995 19:59:03 -0700
From: Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com>
Message-Id: <199506080259.TAA05179@ref.tfs.com>
Subject: Re: BSDi 2.0 binary compatibility question
To: wpaul@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu (House of Debuggin')
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 1995 19:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199506072228.SAA00374@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu> from "House of Debuggin'" at Jun 7, 95 06:28:20 pm
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 605       
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> - A statically linked FreeBSD binary will run just fine on the BSDI 2.0
>   system. I used a statically-linked tcsh executable for the test: the
>   shell starts up fine and works great. /bin/csh and /bin/ls work too.
>   The BSDI file(1) and nm(1) commands doen't recognize the executables, 
>   but they run anyway.
>  
> - A statically linked program from BSDI 2.0 doesn't run at all on FreeBSD.
>   Even a dummy program like this:
> 
sounds of chuckling heard from BSDI
"(he he 'that'll fix'em)"

wonder if they've thrown something in to deliberatly
trip us up....?

(unlikely mind you)

julian