Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:1287 comp.os.386bsd.questions:6028
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!agate.berkeley.edu!cgd
From: cgd@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: FreeBSD, NetBSD coexist and share filesystem!
Date: 18 Oct 93 15:53:17
Organization: Kernel Hackers 'r' Us
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <CGD.93Oct18155317@eden.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
References: <CExLov.3At@latcs1.lat.oz.au> <CEy3zt.1Lp@festival.ed.ac.uk>
<CEyAos.7Kx@veda.is> <CF3Ho5.Jn2@festival.ed.ac.uk>
<CF3w61.6FK@veda.is>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eden.cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: adam@veda.is's message of 18 Oct 93 18:46:34 GMT
In article <CF3w61.6FK@veda.is> adam@veda.is (Adam David) writes:
>This effect only happened for script files, binary executables
>pointed to by relative symbolic links (for example /usr/bin/cc -> gcc) still
>worked fine. Perhaps it was a random effect that made some links fail and
>not others.
no, that was a bug in execve(), which has since been fixed.
re: the FASTLINKS code: both FreeBSD and NetBSD have the same code
to do fast symbolic links in their kernels, and i believe that
*neither* as ships defaults to *creating* fast symlinks, but both
(by default) can *read* the fast symlinks. the file systems
should be 100% compatible, currently.
>FreeBSD worked fine with NetBSD symbolic links. I suspect that the converse
>would not be true. It is necessary to use NetBSD bootblocks if they are
>expected to boot both OS versions.
"wrong" re: symlinks.
right re: bootblocks.
chris
--
chris g. demetriou cgd@cs.berkeley.edu
smarter than your average clam.