From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 3 04:42:12 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 040DFD13 for ; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 04:42:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-x231.google.com (mail-ie0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5002D0D for ; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 04:42:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id rd18so17380469iec.36 for ; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 20:42:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=nvTyRkGMYigvrsTwdwQjN66CM+yG/6INdIFsWRrGdA4=; b=BPZLEj84yiUTfVW/aNE2PADkHyuLc/Ad3evAxmqwYpFFKS6klm4QGo1aV9FHlg9QuI oXlhW09SIjf3mR2pVPtaRTIBuaWWzsBJPT9KWchm5LnjPK5R+jD8Gkobq46427yBEe72 7R6c1NWGsNtB+dX5ZJLS902lz+74LyF7SnUmu6rTFLKeJIQL6tlVNatPaCOrpyfHSlnf PQlhUNe+a6e6tZJeXVNEIfauT+AC/ug5kupblq/i+pa57jzf2g/9x5LdRciWklSuSRRk Z6FiMKvcAKd3rwX8ebiilbbRDjlym4rNov+gCQ9n5loiD3bUHSkbJJ1U9lBF0V6tzQEY nS0A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.30.202 with SMTP id u10mr1756032igh.35.1420260131249; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 20:42:11 -0800 (PST) Sender: kob6558@gmail.com Received: by 10.107.52.19 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Jan 2015 20:42:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54A719FE.4070307@free.fr> References: <620F82BB-1D53-4F2A-9C67-51D5EC3C3144@lists.zabbadoz.net> <7A7DD8BC-D990-4C6A-8452-F8336ECB7D08@lists.zabbadoz.net> <0717155F-4247-467A-A37D-FF1F34104403@orthanc.ca> <20150102150945.P82172@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <54A6820D.503@free.fr> <20150102232655.O82172@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <54A719FE.4070307@free.fr> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 20:42:11 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Yztur65WmZBCfYMi3vA3X8IZJwQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: COMPAT_FREEBSD8 [was: Re: IPSec and racoon issue...] From: Kevin Oberman To: Claude Buisson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.18-1 Cc: FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 04:42:12 -0000 On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Claude Buisson wrote: > On 01/02/2015 18:59, Kevin Oberman wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Ian Smith 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@gmail.com >> > > CBu > You are correct. Senior moment here confusing the kernel COMPAT_FREEBSD options with the misc/compat ports. And now I understand why no COMPAT_FREEBSD9 option is needed in 10 but is in head. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com