From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Feb 25 06:31:46 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id GAA24174 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 25 Feb 1995 06:31:46 -0800
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.34]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id GAA24126; Sat, 25 Feb 1995 06:31:35 -0800
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id BAA23726; Sun, 26 Feb 1995 01:27:50 +1100
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 01:27:50 +1100
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199502251427.BAA23726@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: jkh@freefall.cdrom.com, terryl@CS.Stanford.EDU
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility with NetBSD
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>*static* binary compatible, yes.  If you want something to run on all
>the *BSDs, link it static.  Otherwise all bets are off.

All bets are off anyway.  The runtime combination of a foreign application
and foreign shared libries is not very different from the same foreign
application linked statically.  Foreign syscalls, foreign ioctls, foreign
database, ... won't work in either case.

Bruce