From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 16 12:24:52 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7105A106566B for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:24:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (lefty.soaustin.net [66.135.55.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FEEF8FC2D for ; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:24:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 9C1F08C09B; Sun, 16 Mar 2008 06:56:31 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 06:56:31 -0500 To: Beech Rintoul Message-ID: <20080316115631.GA16341@soaustin.net> References: <20080315080424.13561oymhrersh8g@intranet.encontacto.net> <40994934@ipt.ru> <20080316095023.4a64aecd@deskjail> <200803160129.21065.beech@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200803160129.21065.beech@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: Alexander Leidinger , freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What is the recommended LinuxEmulator and kernel that will run skype-devel and maybe Flash9 X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:24:52 -0000 On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 12:29:15AM -0900, Beech Rintoul wrote: > On another note, skype-1.4.0.118 also requires linux_dri on amd64 as > will the new version. I see that it's flagged only_for_archs= i386. I > have verified (so has skype) that it works fine on FreeBSD amd64. > Can we unflag linux_dri so we're not excluding those users? I vaguely recall some discussion about doing that but it being held off until post-freeze. The question was, once we unflag linux_dri, does that suddenly enable a bunch of ports to try to be built on amd64 that we weren't expecting before? If so, someone(TM) needs to track that so it's not a surprise on the next amd64 package build. mcl