Date: Thu, 31 Jul 1997 11:19:13 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: chuckr@glue.umd.edu (Chuck Robey), jkh@time.cdrom.com, freebsd-current@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: core group topics Message-ID: <E0wtysb-0002kb-00@rover.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 31 Jul 1997 17:12:10 %2B0930." <199707310742.RAA27102@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> References: <199707310742.RAA27102@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199707310742.RAA27102@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Michael Smith writes: : > compatibly. How about we move the discussion from "ignore" stage to an : > enumeration of possible transition problems, so that last problems can be : > solved? I don't honestly think they're all that bad, myself. : : Er, we've been doing this on -hackers the last couple of days. 8) Yes. I'd like to reiterate that it might be time to integrate the ELF kit into the tree, but require (for now) a DOELF=yes in /etc/make.conf. This would allow for even easier experimentation and might make it easier to identify the transition issues involved. ELF kit could also be back ported to 2.2. It might be sensible to have DOELF=no in 2.2 and yes in 3.0. What are the issues with old systems anyway? I thought we had ELF support in the kernel already... Would we need a compatelf package for 2.2 much like we have compat10, et al? Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0wtysb-0002kb-00>