From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 14 19:11:44 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB62716A4CE; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:11:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.93.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D9443D1D; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:11:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from obrien@NUXI.com) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id iBEJBh3P007833; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:11:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id iBEJBhZv007830; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:11:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 11:11:43 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" To: Ruslan Ermilov Message-ID: <20041214191143.GA7774@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <20041214182153.GA80721@ip.net.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041214182153.GA80721@ip.net.ua> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD Group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 cc: amd64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/emulators/linux_base on amd64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.org List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 19:11:45 -0000 On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 08:21:53PM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > Hi David, > > Any reason why the patch from > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-amd64/2004-October/002210.html > > has not been committed? The patch is required to install the > port on amd64, and applying it helps. It should not be > committed verbatim because kern.elf32.fallback_brand does not > exist on 4.x, but otherwise it's okay. (The --noscripts is > also necessary on amd64.) Because the patch is totally wrong. --noscripts is also wrong.