From owner-freebsd-current Tue Mar 16 17: 7: 8 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from cain.gsoft.com.au (genesi.lnk.telstra.net [139.130.136.161]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9891D1519C for ; Tue, 16 Mar 1999 17:07:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) Received: from lot.gsoft.com.au (doconnor@lot.gsoft.com.au [203.38.152.106]) by cain.gsoft.com.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA03003; Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:36:32 +1030 (CST) (envelope-from doconnor@gsoft.com.au) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.3 [p0] on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:36:32 +1030 (CST) From: "Daniel O'Connor" To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Subject: Re: latest -current doesn't execute BSDI-binary bladeenc Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG, Mikhail Teterin Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 17-Mar-99 Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > that bladeenc does not run, the problem is that a BSDI executable > > does not run. Which breaks a promise from > The bug is on the web site, not in the kernel. David Greenman > committed a patch to better support large memory configurations. > Unfortunately, it seems this was not possible to achieve without > breaking BSDI compatibility. Would it be feasable to have an option to switch between the two? I can see people wanting BSDI compatibility and not having large quantities of RAM being fairly common. --- Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.au "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from." -- Andrew Tanenbaum To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message