On 01/02/2015 18:59, Kevin Oberman wrote:> 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.
>
In my understanding, the COMPAT_FREEBSDxx kernel options are not for ports,
but apply to the kernel syscalls interface and are needed to run old binaries
compiled on previous versions of FreeBSD. This is different from the libraries
versionning.
> 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
CBu