On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
>
> I believe you have :-)
ummm but we =have never guaranteed that N+1 binaries will run on N
systems.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
> any change that has to be added to 4.x tomake it run on 5.x is the wrong
> answer. 4.x binaries should all run on 5.x (unless something was
> accidentally committed to 4.x that should be backed out.)
>
> any change for allowing 4.x binaries to run
On 03:38-0800, Mar 13, 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 01:24:36PM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> > On 02:00-0800, Mar 13, 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:15:30AM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> > >
> > > > I can replace my eaccess(2) patch for
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 01:24:36PM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> On 02:00-0800, Mar 13, 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:15:30AM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> >
> > > I can replace my eaccess(2) patch for test(1) by a workaround I am
> > > planning to commit to -sta
On 02:00-0800, Mar 13, 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:15:30AM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
>
> > I can replace my eaccess(2) patch for test(1) by a workaround I am
> > planning to commit to -stable. Is it desirable solution?
>
> Well, this won't solve my problem since I'
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:15:30AM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
> I can replace my eaccess(2) patch for test(1) by a workaround I am
> planning to commit to -stable. Is it desirable solution?
Well, this won't solve my problem since I'm trying to run the 5.x
binary. I'm not immediately familiar
On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 09:33:32PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> any change that has to be added to 4.x tomake it run on 5.x is the wrong
> answer.
> 4.x binaries should all run on 5.x (unless something was accidentally
> committed to 4.x that should be backed out.)
>
> any change for allowing
On 21:33-0800, Mar 12, 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
> any change that has to be added to 4.x tomake it run on 5.x is the wrong
> answer.
> 4.x binaries should all run on 5.x (unless something was accidentally
> committed to 4.x that should be backed out.)
>
> any change for allowing 4.x binaries
any change that has to be added to 4.x tomake it run on 5.x is the wrong
answer.
4.x binaries should all run on 5.x (unless something was accidentally
committed to 4.x that should be backed out.)
any change for allowing 4.x binaries to run on 5.x should be done on the
5.x side of things,
(unless
Kris, Robert,
On 20:11-0800, Mar 12, 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 10:59:07PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >
> > > Subject says it all, really; this is the cause of part of my problems in
> > > getting 5.x packages built
rwatson> Certainly we can MFC eaccess(), but that's not going to make
rwatson> the problem go away. Fundamentally our model is backward
rwatson> compatibility, not forward compatibility. We need to build
rwatson> 5.0 packages on 5.0.
That's why I build FreeBSD 5-current snapshots on a 5-curren
On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 10:59:07PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > Subject says it all, really; this is the cause of part of my problems in
> > getting 5.x packages built on the bento cluster, because it seems that
> > /bin/sh has come to depend on
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Subject says it all, really; this is the cause of part of my problems in
> getting 5.x packages built on the bento cluster, because it seems that
> /bin/sh has come to depend on this syscall. Executing a 5.x /bin/sh on
> a 4.x system causes a SIGSYS i
On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 07:12:11PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Subject says it all, really
Herf. Subject is the wrong way around; this breaks execution of 5.x
binaries under 4.x, not the other way around.
> ; this is the cause of part of my problems
> in getting 5.x packages built on the bent
14 matches
Mail list logo
