From owner-freebsd-emulation Wed Mar 22 14:10:54 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp (ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp [210.234.123.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BF3837C2B9 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:10:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from knu@idaemons.org) Received: from daemon.local.idaemons.org (pc343042.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp [203.140.143.42]) by ms.tokyo.jcom.ne.jp (8.9.1/3.7W 03/13/00) with ESMTP id HAA02468; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:10:41 +0900 (JST) Received: by daemon.local.idaemons.org (8.9.3/3.7W) id HAA22591; Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:10:10 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 07:10:09 +0900 Message-ID: <86zorqvepq.wl@archon.local.idaemons.org> From: "Akinori -Aki- MUSHA" To: vsilyaev@mindspring.com Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: About VMware port User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.2.18 (Please Forgive Me) EMIKO/1.13.12 (Euglena sociabilis) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) APEL/10.2 MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 9) (Canyonlands) (i386--freebsd) Organization: Associated I. Daemons X-PGP-Public-Key: finger knu@FreeBSD.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: 1BEF D9B2 BABD 25D7 659A FD08 89C2 F3BE E981 4E16 MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by EMIKO 1.13.12 - "Euglena sociabilis") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Hi, I'd like to ask you something before I touch your VMware 1.1 port and import VMware 2.0 port. My questions are these: 1. The current emulators/vmware port uses the patches vmmon-freebsd-0.94 and vmnet-freebsd-0.10, but the latest versions of them are 0.95 and 0.11. Should the latest patches work with VMware 1.1? 2. The port's maintainer is currently you, but the VMware port seems very much concerning or depending on the Linux compatibility API specs, which are discussed here in the -emulation list. Do you mind if I change the maintainer address to the freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org? (Of course, your suggestion will be respected just the same) 3. The Linux procfs port seems working well with VMware and I don't see any reason for one to prefer fakeprocfs which asks some binaries to be setuid'ed to root. Is there any problem when I set the default behavior to using the Linux procfs port? Or rather, when removing fakeprocfs support? Besides, I made some cosmetic changes to the stock vmware port, plus prepared a refined vmware2 port. Please test them if you have time. http://people.freebsd.org/~knu/ports/emulators/ Changes: - make portlint happy. (Still grumbling but there's no error now) - avoid creating files out of workdir - remove the void directory "patch" (What ever was this?) - get to install VMware tools (2.0 port only) - adjust indentation/whitespace - get to use Linux procfs by default - etc. Notes: - I only tested the vmware2 port (which I have a purchased license) - Without Linux procfs, you need to setuid some of the binaries to root. Currently I'm not sure which ones are safe to setuid or which ones are enough to run VM. -- / /__ __ / ) ) ) ) / Akinori -Aki- MUSHA aka / (_ / ( (__( "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-emulation" in the body of the message