Hi, On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Julian Elischer <jul...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 10/11/11 12:36 PM, Arnaud Lacombe wrote: >>> [...] >> libprocstat is _itself_ a problem: >> >> % git grep 'define _KERNEL' . >> [...] >> lib/libprocstat/cd9660.c:#define _KERNEL >> lib/libprocstat/nwfs.c:#define _KERNEL >> lib/libprocstat/smbfs.c:#define _KERNEL >> lib/libprocstat/udf.c:#define _KERNEL >> lib/libprocstat/zfs.c:#define _KERNEL >> [...] >> >> ok, I admit this is all FS related stuff :) > > but at least it comes with the system so it matches. > no, you should be able to run a FreeBSD 1.0 userland and a 9-RELEASE kernel together and have all utilities working. If not, you cannot claim to support backward compatibility, even if you do on a subset of kernel/userland interface. That said, this is just my personal opinion.
> we've been looking for the 'right' way to do this since, hmmm, 1988 that I > remember and I bet before that too. > then the job was done bad. I will repeat myself here, but I ran what-was-to-become-Linux-v3.2 kernel on a 4 years old openwrt image and still had a functional system. Comparatively, I could not mix FreeBSD 7-STABLE userland and 8-STABLE kernel, The 8-STABLE kernel even changed the FS enough to make FreeBSD 7 unable to boot (even single user). Let me emphasize again that it is only my personal opinion :-) - Arnaud _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
