Re: making the COMPAT_43 option optional

[Sander Vesik <sander@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai <asmodai@xxxxxx> wrote:
> -On [20030811 10:52], David P. Reese Jr. (daver@xxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>>I've managed to build some simple kernels without the COMPAT_43 option
>>with the help of some strategically placed #if defined()'s.  I'm curious
>>if we even need this option any more.
> 
> Cool, you just tackled one of the things I had on my personal todo list.
> (*grin*, saves me work)
> 
>>By the end of the week I hope to have LINT building without COMPAT_43
>>and after that I'll try to tackle world.  I'm out of town until the middle
>>of the week so I won't be able to participate in the should-we-do-it
>>discussion, but I'd like to hear some kind of consensus by then.
> 
> I wonder, is the impact more on the API side or on the use in real life
> side?

At the very least, COMPAT_43 used to be needed to be able to run Xfree86.

> 
>>This is the kind of support that we plan on buliding into the userland
>>emulation layer, right?
> 
> I think that's the ultimate goal yes.
> 

-- 
	Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++