Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!caen!usenet.cis.ufl.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.duke.edu!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!jkh From: jkh@violet.berkeley.edu (Jordan K. Hubbard) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: To Merge or Not to Merge *BSD. What does it really mean? Date: 17 Jan 1995 16:32:16 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 20 Message-ID: <3fgreg$prr@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <3enogm$5l7@fw.novatel.ca> <3f253c$es0@agate.berkeley.edu> <3f9hst$q8n@idiom.com> <3fbgok$s0i@ivory.lm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu In article <3fbgok$s0i@ivory.lm.com>, Peter Berger <peterb@telerama.lm.com> wrote: >In article <3f9hst$q8n@idiom.com>, David Muir Sharnoff <muir@idiom.com> wrote: >> >>The FreeBSD camp should consider it a bug whenever a NetBSD program >>fails to compile or its binary to run. >> >>The NetBSD camp should consider it a bug whenever a FreeBSD program >>fails to compile or its binary to run. > >This is the single most intelligent thing that has been said in the >entire discussion. Agreed. I'd be happy to field bug reports from people who have statically linked NetBSD binaries that don't run. Shared library compatibility would also be nice but I don't see that happening real soon, so for now I'd prefer to deal only with binary compat issues. Jordan