[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] How to support arch on systems with a small PAT
Re: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] How to support arch on systems with a small PATH_MAX [WAS: arch o n windows?]
Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:14:28 -0500
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 06:25:38 +0200, address@hidden <address@hidden> wrote:
> pathnames like
> can friendly coexist without breaking upward compatibility.
> all which needs to be done:
Okay, perhaps I need someone who knows what it means to define upwards
compatible for me. I have not been able to find a good definition of
it on the Net. I know what backwards compatible means. I've even seen
and understand forward compatible. But I inferred a meaning for
upwards compatible from seeing it used on this list.
In my original post I (mis)used upwards compatible to mean introducing
changes to tla in such a way that older binaries would be able to work
with the newer data, without change. So please take this into account
when (re)reading my post.