Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA2351 ; Mon, 01 Mar 93 10:55:15 EST Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!ira.uka.de!math.fu-berlin.de!news.netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!lukka From: lukka@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Tuomas J Lukka) Subject: Re: 386BSD Posix Compliance Message-ID: <1993Feb27.160355.5375@klaava.Helsinki.FI> Organization: University of Helsinki References: <C2z38u.3BA@panix.com> <1993Feb25.080612.16553@gmd.de> <C308pG.2v6@sugar.neosoft.com> Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1993 16:03:55 GMT Lines: 19 >If 0.2 is significantly incompatible with 0.1 at the kernel level, without >some compelling breakthrough to offset this cost, then I can guarantee that >there *will* be a fork with lots of people sticking to 386BSD-classic and >probably creating a new baseline distribution. Actually, I think this will not be necessary... J&J (The Jolitzes) are planning on making the interface using C++. There's absolutely nothing that prevents you from making a compatibility layer using that interface.. Because the device *operations* cannot change a lot, just about all it would take would be to make some stub functions and you could have your [bc]devsw and all. Also, because the kernel would be a lot more modular, it should not be too difficult to achieve this. TJL