Hello,
> the compat packages exist to provide missing libraries. the netbsd
> libc "soname" has never changed -- it was libc.so.12 when the first
> ELF port arrived, and it is libc.so.12 today. of course you can not
So the ABI for libc didn't change since the introduction of ELF and
no compat l
> when making such assertions it helps to be actually correct. while it
> is true that *any* old binary may require COMPAT_XX options in the kernel,
> netbsd supports binaries back to 386bsd for i386, with shorter periods
> of backwards compat for the newer plaforms. i have personal
>
> when making such assertions it helps to be actually correct. while it
> is true that *any* old binary may require COMPAT_XX options in the kernel,
> netbsd supports binaries back to 386bsd for i386, with shorter periods
> of backwards compat for the newer plaforms. i have personally run 386b
They presumably did it because they thought it would be a good idea.
Perhaps they wanted to hide implementation differences between
different OSes. Either way, the low-level functions in FreeBSD work
just fine.
FWIW, i just ran "man funopen" on my netbsd box and it says:
HISTOR
To David Brownlee: I doubt NetBSD 1.0 binary could run against
a NetBSD 1.6 libc. They don't care much about binary compatibility. You
could not even run a statically linked 1.0 app without some COMPAT_
option in the kernel, I think.
when making such assertions it helps to be act
5 matches
Mail list logo
