On 01/02/2015 05:49, Kevin Oberman wrote:> > Thanks to the magic of symbol versioning, I don't think there has a > COMPAT_FREEBSD8 or COMPAT_FREEBSD9. With luck and care, there should never > be one again.Have a look at sys/conf/NOTES in -head, to find: COMPAT_FREEBSD9 COMPAT_FREEBSD10 added by r273603 on Oct 24 but no COMPAT_FREEBSD8> -- > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired > E-mail: rkoberman at gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org" >
On Fri, 2 Jan 2015 12:33:33 +0100, Claude Buisson wrote: > On 01/02/2015 05:49, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > > > Thanks to the magic of symbol versioning, I don't think there has a > > COMPAT_FREEBSD8 or COMPAT_FREEBSD9. With luck and care, there should never > > be one again. > > Have a look at sys/conf/NOTES in -head, to find: > > COMPAT_FREEBSD9 > COMPAT_FREEBSD10 > > added by r273603 on Oct 24 > > but no COMPAT_FREEBSD8 Interesting, thanks guys. Maybe 8 and 9 come to the same thing in this respect. FWIW, pascal binaries built on 8.2 i386 run fine on 9.3 amd64, but mine are just maths and file I/O. Not sure why I was surprised .. cheers, Ian