Re: COMPAT_FREEBSD<ancient>

On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 03:32:24PM -0400, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 16:06:56 +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 08:36:11AM -0400, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> ...
> > > Which brings up a question - at what point does it make sense to remove some
> > > of this code?
> > Never.
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> > > IIUC, this code falls well outside the current policy around
> > > ABI compatibility.
> > How so?
> > 
> > > So the only thing that the removal of these compat
> > > layers should affect is source compatibility, but since this compat code is
> > You do not understand what ABI compat is.
> 
> Sorry, I rushed when I wrote my email and goofed.  (1) I meant to say binary
> compat not ABI compat, and (2) I conflated the ports policy with all of
And what is the difference between binary compatibily and ABI?

> FreeBSD.  Not that it matters since this removal isn't happening :)
> 
> > > about syscalls (at least according to sys/conf/NOTES) any code still using
> > > these interfaces would have to explicitly invoke these compat syscalls and
> > > not their new replacements.  IOW, this should be a vanishingly small number
> > > of programs.  (As an additional data point, on amd64 GENERIC defines all of
> > > them but MINIMAL starts with COMPAT_FREEBSD10.)
> > 
> > We do run FreeBSD 1.0 binaries on HEAD, with the right config.  I do not see
> > a reason to break this.
> 
> Interesting!  Out of curiosity, what kind of programs are these?

The 1.0 or 1.1 world in chroot.  Last time I ran make in src/.