From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 10 18:30:17 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB74F16A4CE; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:30:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mx1.originative.co.uk (freebsd.gotadsl.co.uk [81.6.249.198]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C753443D3F; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:30:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from paul@mx1.originative.co.uk) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.originative.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9767815586; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:29:43 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mx1.originative.co.uk ([127.0.0.1])port 10024) with ESMTP id 35855-01; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:29:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: by mx1.originative.co.uk (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 99F1315589; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:29:29 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:29:28 +0000 From: Paul Richards To: Scott Long Message-ID: <20050310182928.GV98930@myrddin.originative.co.uk> References: <86k6oht386.fsf@xps.des.no> <422F087F.9030906@portaone.com> <20050309.085035.129356491.imp@bsdimp.com> <422F6703.70409@portaone.com> <20050310161607.GO98930@myrddin.originative.co.uk> <86d5u7fn1z.fsf@xps.des.no> <20050310171917.GQ98930@myrddin.originative.co.uk> <42308769.5080506@samsco.org> <20050310180903.GS98930@myrddin.originative.co.uk> <42308F0C.6020102@samsco.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42308F0C.6020102@samsco.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at originative.co.uk cc: Maxim Sobolev cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: alfred@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org cc: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav cc: "M. Warner Losh" Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/compat/linux linux_socket.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:30:18 -0000 On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:16:44AM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > Paul Richards wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 10:44:09AM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > > > >>Paul Richards wrote: > >> > >>>On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 06:06:16PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Paul Richards writes: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Imagine something like Photoshop being written on the most recent > >>>>>version of Mac OS X and finding that compatibility only worked > >>>>>forward. That would mean that most users out there would have to > >>>>>upgrade their OS in order to use the most recent version of Photoshop! > >>>> > >>>>Yes, that is usually how it goes. > >>> > >>> > >>>I don't believe it does. Can anyone provide real world examples of > >>>this happening that we can consider? > >>> > >> > >>You know, I'm completely outraged that I can't use MSWord 2005 on my > >>Windows 3.1 system! I even installed the win32s library! Don't those > >>bozos at Microsoft care at all about forwards compatibility? > > > > > >We're talking minor releases across stable branches here. This > >issue is not whether 6.1 should run on 5.3 it's whether 5.4 should > >run on 5.3 > > > >I would expect software developed on XP service pack 2 to be able > >to run on a fresh CD install of XP. > > > > No that's not the case. Go look at software retail boxes sometime. > They often say "Requires Windows FOO Service Pack BAR". This was > especially true with NT 4.0 and its incredibly long lifespan. I would > fully expect that software that comes out in the next year to start > requiring SP2 for XP. What we're discussing here though is changes in the ABI. If SP2 fixes a bug in the OS that is essential to your software working then obviously it will require SP2. Likewise, if a new feature gets added to XP in a later service pack and your product is written to make use of it then clearly you'll require the latest SP. However, what we're talking about here is targetting the original version of XP but using a later version as the development platform. Obviously anyone sane will thouroughly test their product against both versions but they'd expect the same binary to work on both if it was written against what they expected to be a stable ABI. -- Paul Richards