From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 1 15:04:18 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA951065672 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:04:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stapleton.41@gmail.com) Received: from mail-yx0-f195.google.com (mail-yx0-f195.google.com [209.85.210.195]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 761438FC08 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2009 15:04:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yxe33 with SMTP id 33so69947yxe.7 for ; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:04:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=tgApavMEs8KzgyHARWtbAlBalnGK0UiYyAB4Or+i4cc=; b=BUmRsLuhS/6Gs70OXlV4no+/lXSurM1N7Gv/DA5bAxX6UFhkYJMRDW+q7ERyJUWrph e2m/TiQBsjvFnAoGKBxWQlZXHZh+pl2CuLhy1a3e/ve2CAaapgXOjRR1ohvT/I97NR9i Tv4Trv7Hcwz69laKdMj07GzIcIT4PTW4CJwcI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=HAecNEPzfU2wD1QGm6kshxN0MeRwQpy46FG2lvKDgDtPyCaQo7BML5HXYX/Bt8EqfR +SB1LV6N7b2zuPQ8pOnHgHTVOBTeuDRsa15o5fOyo/uF7t1MhBARqcAHyc7C10Uaq6L5 w99bL9E4TCTFmWPzYQwLLfq1lX0QRQfefhekM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.237.10 with SMTP id k10mr11832982ybh.112.1251817457644; Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:04:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <80f4f2b20909010644j7962dc4cub71e725d083072ef@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 11:04:17 -0400 Message-ID: <80f4f2b20909010804s44b8f6bbpbae589eafe3022ef@mail.gmail.com> From: Jim To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, "b. f." Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Subject: Re: 32 bit ports on an AMD64 system X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:04:18 -0000 > Well, this would certainly help with building the ports safely. But I > think we -- at least I was -- were thinking that you would actually > leave them in the jail, and run them from the jailed environment, so > there would be fewer run-time problems, and no work to transfer them > over. Remember that you've got to ensure that there is no problem > with run-time linking of shared libraries, some of which (in your > current scheme) will have both 32-bit and 64-bit versions with the > same soname. You can probably work around this problem as well, but > it seems easier to leave them in the jail. > With only console stuff, that'd probably be fine, a jail wouldn't be much more tedious than the environment shuffling I'd need to run the 32 bit stuff, however I'll want to do some X11 stuff.. I know you can access X between different users on a machine, but can a jail'ed shell open a window on an X server running from the main machine? I'm not even sure what terms I would use for searching on how to get that working. Thanks, -Jim Stapleton