COMPAT_FREEBSD8 [was: Re: IPSec and racoon issue...]

[Kevin Oberman]

On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Claude Buisson <claude.buisson1 at free.fr>
wrote:

> On 01/02/2015 18:59, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 4:44 AM, Ian Smith <smithi at nimnet.asn.au> 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 at 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 at gmail.com