Hi,
On 03/03/07, Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 20/02/07, Christopher Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ok FreeBSD Support round one..
> >
> >Be gentle this is my first attempt at working with the rest of this
> >community..
> >
> >Files it modi
andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 20/02/07, Christopher Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ok FreeBSD Support round one..
> >
> >Be gentle this is my first attempt at working with the rest of this
> >community..
> >
> >Files it modifies and the reasons are as follows
> >
> >configure - Adds
Hi,
On 20/02/07, Christopher Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok FreeBSD Support round one..
Be gentle this is my first attempt at working with the rest of this
community..
Files it modifies and the reasons are as follows
configure - Adds HOST_FREEBSD type to alter included libraries FreeBSD
MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANON also works on Solaris. In fact, Linux is the
only platform where it doesn't work due to a bug in the Linux kernel
as Fabrice mentions:
http://www.qemu.org/kqemu-tech.html#SEC7
Technically on Solaris, /tmp is probably the same thing as
MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANON since the filesyst
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Ok FreeBSD Support round one..
>
>Be gentle this is my first attempt at working with the rest of this
>community..
>
>Files it modifies and the reasons are as follows
>
>configure - Adds HOST_FREEBSD type to alter included libraries FreeBSD
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ben Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Start with the configure script and Makefiles, and any very specfic, targeted
: and small patches and let those changes slowly propogate out.
Most of the FreeBSD ports patches are relatively easy to justify and
e
Ok FreeBSD Support round one..
Be gentle this is my first attempt at working with the rest of this
community..
Files it modifies and the reasons are as follows
configure - Adds HOST_FREEBSD type to alter included libraries FreeBSD does
not need -ltr
Makefile.target - Once again uses HOST_FREE
> So should I make a separate patch for each modified file?
No. You should break changes into logically independent patches.
It is ok for a single patch to touch multiple files, but it should only fix
one thing.
Paul
___
Qemu-devel mailing list
Qemu-
On Monday 19 February 2007 21:08, Ben Taylor wrote:
> Having been in your shoes, the only thing I can tell you is start
> small. Be able to justify your patches and change as little as
> possible. Be smart about how you code things if there are
> specific reasons. And get ready for a long haul.
On Monday 19 February 2007 20:46, Paul Brook wrote:
> > This is a sidetrack here... But is it at all possible to make future
> > releases of the source more FreeBSD friendly?
>
> If someone puts in the effort to make it so, yes.
>
> Note that dumping the current patches from FreeBSD ports on the li
Christopher Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a sidetrack here... But is it at all possible to make future releases
> of the source more FreeBSD friendly?
>
> I am willing to work off a specified codebase to bring it up to FreeBSD speed
> so it can be easily maintained from there
> This is a sidetrack here... But is it at all possible to make future
> releases of the source more FreeBSD friendly?
If someone puts in the effort to make it so, yes.
Note that dumping the current patches from FreeBSD ports on the list is
generally not sufficient. Blindly posting patches witho
This is a sidetrack here... But is it at all possible to make future releases
of the source more FreeBSD friendly?
I am willing to work off a specified codebase to bring it up to FreeBSD speed
so it can be easily maintained from there...
Because unfortunately out of the box it doesn't build.
13 matches
Mail list logo
