From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 30 21:41:55 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emulation@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 953BC16A4DE; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:41:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from shildreth@allantgroup.com) Received: from scotth.emsphone.com (scotth.emsphone.com [199.67.51.179]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2016543D5C; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:41:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from shildreth@allantgroup.com) Received: from scotth.emsphone.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scotth.emsphone.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k7ULfn0X089911; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:41:49 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from shildreth@allantgroup.com) Received: (from shildret@localhost) by scotth.emsphone.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k7ULfn9p089910; Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:41:49 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from shildreth@allantgroup.com) X-Authentication-Warning: scotth.emsphone.com: shildret set sender to shildreth@allantgroup.com using -f From: "Scott T. Hildreth" To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_K=F6vesd=E1n?= In-Reply-To: <44F6055D.6080409@FreeBSD.org> References: <1156957083.54794.75.camel@scotth.emsphone.com> <68109618@srv.sem.ipt.ru> <1156967569.54794.92.camel@scotth.emsphone.com> <91304074@srv.sem.ipt.ru> <1156973617.54794.100.camel@scotth.emsphone.com> <44F6055D.6080409@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:41:49 -0500 Message-Id: <1156974109.54794.106.camel@scotth.emsphone.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.2.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Cc: FreeBSD Emulation Subject: Re: I am trying to compile under linux compat X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: shildreth@allantgroup.com List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:41:55 -0000 > > Just curious, if linux_base-fc4 is going to be the default, why not > > make a linux-devtools port that coincides with the linux_base port? So currently there aren't plans for a updated linux-devtool port? > > > > > > > I'd suggest stage3 instead of stage1 since it is the most complete > version. WITH_LINUXBASE is okay, if you don't want to chroot, but that > is discouraged, since _none_ of the related ports are guaranteed to work > properly with that. Only the default linux_base port is supported > officially by our ports collection, which is already linux_base-fc4 at > the moment, that's why I did not mention this way in my previous answer. > -- Scott T. Hildreth