Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 09:28:04 +0100 From: Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@sigpipe.cz> To: Astrodog <astrodog@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD64 Ports Message-ID: <20050324082804.GA83746@isis.sigpipe.cz> In-Reply-To: <2fd864e050323182432f78eaa@mail.gmail.com> References: <2fd864e05032316492d805751@mail.gmail.com> <20050324011220.GA81046@isis.sigpipe.cz> <2fd864e050323182432f78eaa@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
# astrodog@gmail.com / 2005-03-23 18:24:24 -0800:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 02:12:20 +0100, Roman Neuhauser
> <neuhauser@sigpipe.cz> wrote:
> > # astrodog@gmail.com / 2005-03-23 16:49:41 -0800:
> > > I'm finding a huge number of ports that claim to be i386-only, but
> > > that seem to work fine on AMD64, even moreso on the Linux compat side.
> > > Are there any thoughts on how to resolve this?
> >
> > Find out in cvs why they have been marked i386-only, and if it
> > doesn't seem to be the case (anymore), file a PR with a patch.
> > One for each port.
>
> How could we denote a linux32 dependancy?
No idea. But I thought you said that a huge number of ports works
on amd64 without the compat layer, and an even larger number works
*with* it. That looks like a good deal of low hanging fruit.
But I must admit that I'm not all that interested in linux
compatibility, perhaps except for the Sun JDK.
--
How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?
You don't know, man. You don't KNOW.
Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050324082804.GA83746>