Paul B. Mahol wrote:
On 3/18/09, rasz wrote:
hi
i have 2 distinct questions, and first is, i installed a linux app
(binaries) and it failed
when run complaining that it needs a "CPU with SSE instuctions enabled".
does anyone know what this is and related too?
For example, mplayer chec
On 3/18/09, rasz wrote:
> hi
> i have 2 distinct questions, and first is, i installed a linux app
> (binaries) and it failed
> when run complaining that it needs a "CPU with SSE instuctions enabled".
> does anyone know what this is and related too?
For example, mplayer check for SSSE3 but it will
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Adam Vande More wrote:
> rasz wrote:
>
>> hi
>> i have 2 distinct questions, and first is, i installed a linux app
>> (binaries) and it failed
>> when run complaining that it needs a "CPU with SSE instuctions enabled".
>> does anyone know what this is and related t
rasz wrote:
hi
i have 2 distinct questions, and first is, i installed a linux app
(binaries) and it failed
when run complaining that it needs a "CPU with SSE instuctions enabled".
does anyone know what this is and related too?
i am running 7.2-prerelease i386 with linux_base-fc4. the only setti
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 06:14:59PM +0100, rasz wrote:
>
> hi
> i have 2 distinct questions, and first is, i installed a linux app
> (binaries) and it failed
> when run complaining that it needs a "CPU with SSE instuctions enabled".
> does anyone know what this is and related too?
SSE is an Intel
and it failed
when run complaining that it needs a "CPU with SSE instuctions enabled".
does anyone know what this is and related too?
are you CPU SSE capable? if so, probably this app checks capabilities
through /proc
add this to /etc/fstab
linprocfs /compat/linux/proc linprocf
rasz wrote:
hi
i have 2 distinct questions, and first is, i installed a linux app
(binaries) and it failed
when run complaining that it needs a "CPU with SSE instuctions enabled".
does anyone know what this is and related too?
i am running 7.2-prerelease i386 with linux_base-fc4. the only setti
hi
i have 2 distinct questions, and first is, i installed a linux app
(binaries) and it failed
when run complaining that it needs a "CPU with SSE instuctions enabled".
does anyone know what this is and related too?
i am running 7.2-prerelease i386 with linux_base-fc4. the only setting i
have is
Thank you, I had to use a different linux library (linux-dri I think),
but it ended up working.
-Jim Stapleton
On 12/27/06, Boris Samorodov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 14:02:39 -0500 Jim Stapleton wrote:
> I'm not sure what to do at this point, I'm trying to run a linux app
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 14:02:39 -0500 Jim Stapleton wrote:
> I'm not sure what to do at this point, I'm trying to run a linux app
> (binary) that requires libGLU.so.1, and it's an x86 binary.
It requires a linux library.
> When I first ran it, it complained that the file libGLU.so.1 could not
> be
I'm not sure what to do at this point, I'm trying to run a linux app
(binary) that requires libGLU.so.1, and it's an x86 binary.
When I first ran it, it complained that the file libGLU.so.1 could not
be found (it was in my /usr/X11R6/lib directory. I made a simlink with
that name to that file to
when i try and install this arcserv rpm under linux compatablility mode it
gives me 0 bit files for all the asagent files.
i am running freebsd 5.0
and i have installed this same package on redhat linux 6.1 and 6.2 and it
works correctly
does anyone have an idea what i am doing wrong?
SAMBA#
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Mikko Työläjärvi wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
>
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > I'm noticing some odd behaviour with the linux compatability
> > recently. I have this small gnome app called gnome-run. It
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> I'm noticing some odd behaviour with the linux compatability
> recently. I have this small gnome app called gnome-run. It links against
> a number of gnome libraries that I've copied from my linux pa
Hey folks,
I'm noticing some odd behaviour with the linux compatability
recently. I have this small gnome app called gnome-run. It links against
a number of gnome libraries that I've copied from my linux partition over
to /compat/linux and put in the appropriate d
Hello -
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, joe wrote:
> I am atrying to compile a linux program under FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE. I
> have installed linux_base but seem to be missing a number of files,
> specifically header files.
DISCLAIMER - this is from a FreeBSD newbie.
If the program is not Linux-specific
I am atrying to compile a linux program under FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE. I
have installed linux_base but seem to be missing a number of files,
specifically header files.
Here's a portion of the errors when making the program (by the way, it's
cdparanoia. I am following the lead of a discussion t
In the last episode (Jul 25), Eric Dedrick said:
> > Just to clarify, I mean that using portupgrade will (hopefully, and
> > in my experience, almost always) take care of your dependencies
> > during the upgrade process, thus saving you from the IMO less
> > preferable alternative of running more
> Just to clarify, I mean that using portupgrade will
> (hopefully, and in my experience, almost always) take
> care of your dependencies during the upgrade process,
> thus saving you from the IMO less preferable
> alternative of running more than one version of a
> port.
>
> Have you tried portup
-Original Message-
From: Eric Dedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:58:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: linux compatability broken
> I changed from 6 to 7.1 when -STABLE did using portupgrade, and
> managed not to break anyt
> I changed from 6 to 7.1 when -STABLE did using portupgrade, and
> managed not to break anything in the system, including Opera and
> Acrobat5. Don't know whether it was just dumb luck, but as a general
> cure for running two versions of any port, especially linux_base, I tend
> to favor it.
Ye
7/25/2002 12:49:49 AM, Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In the last episode (Jul 24), Eric Dedrick said:
>> Okay, we got it. I had to run linux_base-6 and *not* any type of
>> linux_base (7.1) whatsoever.
>>
>> Since it would appear that running linux_base-6 and linux_base(7.1)
are
>> m
In the last episode (Jul 24), Eric Dedrick said:
> Okay, we got it. I had to run linux_base-6 and *not* any type of
> linux_base (7.1) whatsoever.
>
> Since it would appear that running linux_base-6 and linux_base(7.1) are
> mutually exclusive (after all, they run non-compatable versions of glib
I'm only partly correct in what I mentioned earlier. I still have some
programs (like mozilla) wanting
/compat/svr4/lib/ld-linux.so.2 (which again begs the question why we're
looking for ld-linux.so.2 in the svr4 dir instead of the linux dir).
when svr4.ko is loaded and complaining about lackin
Okay, we got it. I had to run linux_base-6 and *not* any type of
linux_base (7.1) whatsoever.
Since it would appear that running linux_base-6 and linux_base(7.1) are
mutually exclusive (after all, they run non-compatable versions of glibc),
here's a question: I have some software I can't upgrad
In the last episode (Jul 24), Eric Dedrick said:
> > Getting a bit better, but now it looks like it thinks the binary is a
> > native BSD one instead of Linux. If you run "file
> > /usr/local/opera/lib/opera/5.05_tp1/opera-static", what does it print?
>
> $ file /usr/local/opera/lib/opera/5.05_t
> Getting a bit better, but now it looks like it thinks the binary is a
> native BSD one instead of Linux. If you run "file
> /usr/local/opera/lib/opera/5.05_tp1/opera-static", what does it print?
$ file /usr/local/opera/lib/opera/5.05_tp1/opera-static
/usr/local/opera/lib/opera/5.05_tp1/opera-s
In the last episode (Jul 24), Eric Dedrick said:
> > > $ opera
> > > ELF interpreter /compat/svr4/lib/ld-linux.so.2 not found
> > > [1] 11964 Abort trap
> >
> > Now that's really confusing. Without the svr4 module loaded, the
> > string "/compat/svr4" should not exist anywhere in the kernel (it
> > $ opera
> > ELF interpreter /compat/svr4/lib/ld-linux.so.2 not found
> > [1] 11964 Abort trap
>
> Now that's really confusing. Without the svr4 module loaded, the
> string "/compat/svr4" should not exist anywhere in the kernel (it's
> defined in /sys/svr4/svr4_sysvec.c). There is simply no
In the last episode (Jul 24), Eric Dedrick said:
> > If you don't load the svr4 module (and don't have options COMPAT_SVR4
> > in your config file), it shouldn't look in /compat/svr4. Try removing
> > those and see what happens.
> >
> > Symlinking /compat/svr4 to /compat/linux won't do a thing, s
> If you don't load the svr4 module (and don't have options COMPAT_SVR4
> in your config file), it shouldn't look in /compat/svr4. Try removing
> those and see what happens.
>
> Symlinking /compat/svr4 to /compat/linux won't do a thing, since the
> syscalls don't match.
I get:
$ opera
ELF inter
In the last episode (Jul 24), Eric Dedrick said:
> > 11590 ktrace NAMI "/compat/svr4/lib/ld-linux.so.2"
> >
> > Why does it think the binary is an svr4 binary? That's why the
> > syscalls still don't match and you get SIGSYS after a while.
> > Something sounds really out of sync.
>
> That's
> but then it's looking for /usr/compat/linux/lib/lib/ld-linux.so.2
>
> make /compat/svr4 -> /compat/linux
No change.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
ous... do you have anything in /compat/svr4?
>
> A symbolic link to /usr/compat/linux/lib.
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
>
>> end of "Re: linux compatability broken
> uhmm you can always kludge by ln -s /compat/linux /compat/svr4 ::)
>
> just curious... do you have anything in /compat/svr4?
A symbolic link to /usr/compat/linux/lib.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
> 11590 ktrace NAMI "/compat/svr4/lib/ld-linux.so.2"
>
> Why does it think the binary is an svr4 binary? That's why the
> syscalls still don't match and you get SIGSYS after a while. Something
> sounds really out of sync.
That's kind of what I thought. I tried re-brandelf'ing my version of
that I'm
> getting kind of sick of it. Everything is fresh. The whole kernel and OS
> is what was on CVS stable as of about noon yesterday. Unless there is a
> patch or something that's not going to do any good.
>
> $ /compat/linux/sbin/ldconfig -p
> (other suff).
> oh wow i didn't notice that one.
>
> run /compat/linux/sbin/ldconfig -p and see where it's looking for
> ld-linux.so.2. the line should be something like:
> ld-linux.so.2 (ELF) => /lib/ld-linux.so.2
>
> but yeah, rebuild that kernel and modules!
I've rebuilt them so many times figuring that was
ry? That's why the
> syscalls still don't match and you get SIGSYS after a while. Something
> sounds really out of sync. Try rebuilding your kernel and modules, and
> make sure they install into the right places.
>
> --
> Dan Nelson
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the last episode (Jul 24), Eric Dedrick said:
> Yup. See the new attachements. Again, thank you so much for the help.
11590 ktrace NAMI "/compat/svr4/lib/ld-linux.so.2"
Why does it think the binary is an svr4 binary? That's why the
syscalls still don't match and you get SIGSYS after a
ofday(0xbfbff378,0,0)
> 11596 mozilla-bin RET settimeofday -1 errno 9 Bad file descriptor
> 11596 mozilla-bin CALL open(0x2809463a,0x28099113,0)
> 11596 mozilla-bin RET open -1 errno 22 Invalid argument
> 11596 mozilla-bin CALL read(0x28094657,0x16,0xbfbff508)
> 11596 mo
Yup. See the new attachements. Again, thank you so much for the help.
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (Jul 24), Eric Dedrick said:
> > > i'm going to have to ask that anybody else who knows please step in
> > > here...
> > >
> > > to know where it's dying, i'd need
In the last episode (Jul 24), Eric Dedrick said:
> > i'm going to have to ask that anybody else who knows please step in
> > here...
> >
> > to know where it's dying, i'd need to see a kernel trace, isolating the
> > system call that it's b0rking on.
>
> I've attached a couple. Thanks.
Try runn
> i'm going to have to ask that anybody else who knows please step in
> here...
>
> to know where it's dying, i'd need to see a kernel trace, isolating the
> system call that it's b0rking on.
I've attached a couple. Thanks.
11362 ktrace RET ktrace 0
11362 ktrace CALL execve(0xbfbff2
cannot load the so.2?
>> (07.23.2002 @ 2237 PST): Eric Dedrick said, in 2.3K: <<
> Okay, I just installed linux_base 7.1 from the ports and linux
> compatability is still broken (everything is failing with "bad system
> call" signal 12). linux.ko is loaded, com
Okay, I just installed linux_base 7.1 from the ports and linux
compatability is still broken (everything is failing with "bad system
call" signal 12). linux.ko is loaded, compatability mode enabled. What
do you suggest now?
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Adam Weinberger wrote:
> you have
gt;
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
>
>> end of "Re: linux compatability broken?" from Eric Dedrick <<
--
"Oh good, my dog found the chainsaw."
-Lilo, &q
> i hope you have a semi-recent ports tree, because you need
> linux_base-7.1.
installing linux_base 7.1 from the ports gives me the following error.
Advice? Thanks.
---
(several screen fulls of the same type of stuff)...
file /usr/share/zoneinfo/right/US/Eastern from install of
glibc-common-2
> if you make changes to the kernel, you need to recompile and reinstall
> the kernel, not the base O/S.
Yeah, I just usually do both since I keep them both cvsup'd.
> however, ld-linux.so.2 has nothing to do with your kernel. what you need
> is to install /usr/ports/emulators/linux_base
I don'
.
-Adam
>> (07.23.2002 @ 1435 PST): Eric Dedrick said, in 0.9K: <<
> > > Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:52:49 -0500 (EST)
> > > From: Eric Dedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: linux compatability broken?
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:35:38 -0500 (EST)
> From: Eric Dedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Roman Neuhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: linux compatability broken?
>
> > > Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:52:49 -0500 (ES
> > Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:52:49 -0500 (EST)
> > From: Eric Dedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: linux compatability broken?
> >
> > I recently made a few kernel changes so I remade world.
> >
> > It
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:52:49 -0500 (EST)
> From: Eric Dedrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: linux compatability broken?
>
> I recently made a few kernel changes so I remade world.
>
> It would seem that linux compatability is
I recently made a few kernel changes so I remade world.
It would seem that linux compatability is now broken. At first things
were complaining about the fact that ld-linux.so.2 got moved. After I
made symbolic links things failed with a bad system call signal 12.
Weren't all of my mo
54 matches
Mail list logo
