Hello.
russell писал 04.06.2015 22:27:
Hi,
After getting frustrated with running Firefox 31.3.0 crashing on
OpenIndiana if it was left running for any length of time.
I did start the process of building Firefox v38.0.1. As a result of
this I found a couple of things when attempting to do this,
On 10/19/10 04:43 AM, Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Albert Lee wrote:
pkg(5) has a as-yet
unused "facet" mechanism that would let you filter components of
packages to not be installed; for example, development files or
documentation.
While it's not yet widely used, X has bravely stepped forward as
a
Albert Lee wrote:
> pkg(5) has a as-yet
> unused "facet" mechanism that would let you filter components of
> packages to not be installed; for example, development files or
> documentation.
While it's not yet widely used, X has bravely stepped forward as
a test case - you should be able to disabl
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Albert Lee wrote:
> Solaris on SPARC, which has had no 32-bit systems for even longer (and
> no 64-bit kernel since S10),
^
Typo, that line was supposed to be "no 32-bit kernel", of course.
-Albert
___
OpenIndiana-disc
And please make sure that 32-bit apps get built largefile-aware.
There are enough of them that aren't, that it's a nuisance sometimes.
___
OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list
OpenIndiana-discuss@openindiana.org
http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/openi
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:35 AM, russell wrote:
> Hi Alasdair,
>
> From a personal perspective I would prefer if everything was 64bit and 32bit
> libraries were provided for backward compatibility. I see no reason to
> provide 32bit binaries if 64bit versions can be created, 64bit x86 chips
> ha
Hi Alasdair,
From a personal perspective I would prefer if everything was 64bit and
32bit libraries were provided for backward compatibility. I see no
reason to provide 32bit binaries if 64bit versions can be created, 64bit
x86 chips have been available since 2003, virtually all the CPUs on
On Thursday, 14 October, 2010 17:09, "Alasdair Lumsden"
said:
> So perhaps not too impossible, and hopefully not too icky. Just need someone
> who
> has the time to implement it, either by modifying/extending the SFW Perl 5.10
> build, or to replace that with a JDS style specfile.
Ah, a mixed
On 14 Oct 2010, at 22:31, Kevin J. Woolley wrote:
> I don't believe a combined 32/64-bit Perl is possible. If it was, it'd still
> be pretty icky, from an implementation point of view. (Is it possible for a
> 64-bit binary to dynamically load 32-bit libs? I'm pretty sure the reverse
> isn't
penIndiana"
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 5:19:30 PM
Subject: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] Building Applications
On 13 Oct 2010, at 15:36, russell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While OpenIndiana (OpenSolaris/Solaris) provide 32 and 64 bit libraries for
> building 64 bit applications.
>
On Thursday, 14 October, 2010 14:19, "Alasdair Lumsden"
said:
> Hi Russell,
>
> That looks like an oversight in the OS worth addressing.
>
> I imagine getting a combined 32/64bit perl on the system would be very
> difficult,
> given perl modules install native extensions. Essentially you'd ne
On 13 Oct 2010, at 15:36, russell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While OpenIndiana (OpenSolaris/Solaris) provide 32 and 64 bit libraries for
> building 64 bit applications.
> However if you want to include bindings to Perl for example, the version
> shipped with OpenIndiana is 32bit including it libraries. S
12 matches
Mail list logo
