freebsd stable - Jan 2015 - COMPAT_FREEBSD8 [was: Re: IPSec and racoon issue...]

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

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Ian Smith <smithi at nimnet.asn.au> wrote:
> 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
>
How odd! 10-STABLE has no reference to COMPAT_FREEBSD9.

Very few things should need any COMPAT_FREEBSD options. For a long time on
8 and 9 I only needed COMPAT_FREEBSD for a single port.

I'll try to take a look at why COMPAT_FREEBSD9 and 10 have been added to
head.
--
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
E-mail: rkoberman at gmail.com