Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:39:52 -0400 From: jhell <jhell@DataIX.net> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: COMPAT_IA32 renamed COMPAT_FREEBSD32 Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1003231933460.47414@qvfongpu.qngnvk.ybpny> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1003221538260.10584@sea.ntplx.net> References: <20100312171758.GB31089@dragon.NUXI.org> <20100312.125032.270969355930630649.imp@bsdimp.com> <20100322185331.GA88847@dragon.NUXI.org> <20100322.130939.70320533309323962.imp@bsdimp.com> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1003221538260.10584@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:42, deischen@ wrote: > [ 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. > > Ill say it again if I have to... COMPAT_ELF32 or possibly even ELF32_SUPPORT seems to me as a very likely possibility. Maybe even: SUPPORT_ELF32= # Support for 32 Bit ELF Binaries This would add its own name structure that is expandabe later-in-future when 128 Bit systems come out ;) Regards, -- jhell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1003231933460.47414>