From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 23 12:11:42 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7497F16A406 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:11:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz) Received: from eva.fit.vutbr.cz (eva.fit.vutbr.cz [147.229.176.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09A3013C4D1 for ; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:11:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz) Received: from eva.fit.vutbr.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eva.fit.vutbr.cz (envelope-from xdivac02@eva.fit.vutbr.cz) (8.13.8/8.13.7) with ESMTP id l2NCBeAW092479 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:11:40 +0100 (CET) Received: (from xdivac02@localhost) by eva.fit.vutbr.cz (8.13.8/8.13.3/Submit) id l2NCBeds092478; Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:11:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 13:11:40 +0100 From: Divacky Roman To: Alexander Leidinger Message-ID: <20070323121140.GA91610@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> References: <58206554@bsam.ru> <20070323113654.8eiudpiv9sco80g0@webmail.leidinger.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070323113654.8eiudpiv9sco80g0@webmail.leidinger.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 147.229.176.14 Cc: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Linux emulation version number 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: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:11:42 -0000 On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 11:36:54AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Boris Samorodov (from Fri, 23 Mar 2007 02:36:37 > +0300): > > >Hi! > > > > > >The FC6 port doesn't install with linux.osrelease=2.4.2. Assuming that > >FreeBSD supports only two values (2.6.16 is the second one) I use the > >following line at the Makefile: > >----- > >.include > > > >LINUX_OSRELEASE!= ${SYSCTL} -n compat.linux.osrelease > > > >.if ${LINUX_OSRELEASE} != "2.6.16" > >IGNORE= supported only for compat.linux.osrelease: 2.6.16 > >.endif > >----- > > > >Something similar should be written to pkg-install script for > >packages sake. The Porters Handbook says it's not good to use sysctl. > >But such approach should be used for all upcomming fc6 ports... > > > >What do you think? Thanks. > > I suggest to do it the other way around: > .if ${LINUX_OSRELEASE} == "2.4.2" > IGNORE > .endif I dont think this is a good idea.... what if someone sets 2.2? from slightly different topic... I think the version should follow these rules 1) we should choose 2.6.16 as our target (we already did but its not stated much) and implement its FULL functionality, we're almost there lacking basically only the *at syscalls (which are almost here as well). when splice() (native one) is finished we should implement linux_splice() (a trivial wrapper) and switch to 2.6.17 or possibly 18 as our reference linux version. 2) the osrelease should be set to the number of the kernel the actual FC is shipped with if < 16 oterwise to 16. I plan to lookup what are the major differences between various linux versions and then we can change these numbers cause now I know only about the 2.6.16 and splice in 2.6.17 I think this way we will get most stability because the FCs are tested with the given kernel number and using higher might lower stability (glibc not being tested for this kernel) and lower number might cripple our ability to emulate.. opinions?