On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:39 PM, jhell <jhell_at_dataix.net> wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:42, deischen_at_ wrote: >> >> [ Some CC's stripped ] >> >> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, M. Warner Losh wrote: >> >>> P.S. I think that there's much traction to the idea of moving from >>> COMPAT_FREEBSDx to some other variable called, for example, >>> COMPAT_FREEBSD_BACK_TO=x, which will give compatibility for binaries >>> as old as FreeBSD x.0, and have all the other magic handled behind the >>> scenes. This would render the inconsistency with COMPAT_FREEBSDx part >>> of the debate completely moot. >> >> Doesn't matter. We're still use to COMPAT_FREEBSDx since >> it's been here so long. So regardless if you rename them >> to COMPAT_FREEBSD_BACK_TO=x, it is still potentially confusing. >> >> COMPAT_ARCH32 and all other choices David mentions seem like >> much better names - even if there wasn't any existing >> COMPAT_FREEBSDx knobs. >> >> My $0.02. >> >> > > > Ill say it again if I have to... COMPAT_ELF32 or possibly even ELF32_SUPPORT > seems to me as a very likely possibility. > > Maybe even: > SUPPORT_ELF32= # Support for 32 Bit ELF Binaries > > This would add its own name structure that is expandabe later-in-future when > 128 Bit systems come out ;) ELF may go away sometime, just like a.out went to the holly pastures. -- Not so young, but still crying out Full of anger full of doubtReceived on Tue Mar 23 2010 - 23:49:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:02 UTC