Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:31:08 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Jason <jason@monsterjam.org> Cc: sparc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: vnc port still does not work.. Message-ID: <20050422133108.GA4159@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20050422112258.GA65217@monsterjam.org> References: <20050421134818.GA29383@monsterjam.org> <1114138650.13448.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050422112258.GA65217@monsterjam.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 07:22:58AM -0400, Jason wrote: > > Have you given tightvnc a try, AFAIK tightvnc is a little bit more > > "maintained" and "current" than RealVNC (see: network optimizations and > > the likes) > both tightvnc and tridiavnc give the same result. > [jason@shonuff]$ pwd =20 > /usr/ports/net/tightvnc > [jason@shonuff]$ make install clean > =3D=3D=3D> tightvnc-1.2.9 is marked as broken: Does not compile on !i386. > =3D=3D=3D> Cleaning for libiconv-1.9.2_1 > etc.. This is evidence that the VNC-derived codebase has problems on !i386. You could also look for a large number of warnings during compilation as more evidence that it wasn't written for 64-bit targets. However you should compare your config to a working config on i386 to rule out configuration problems. Also take this up with the developers, since they're the ones who should fix any non-portability of their code. Kris --k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCaPycWry0BWjoQKURAsolAJ0RRBCOzT/Qe2QOtOS6z2Pg2ejezQCeM5aJ 6aZeCjnEBooxWCqVwWasY98= =mKhj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --k1lZvvs/B4yU6o8G--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050422133108.GA4159>