Joerg Schilling wrote:
And this is definitely wrong!
Unfortunately, Linux-2.6 did change iterfaces in a way so it is impossible
to run all applications compiled under earlier releases.
To avoid confusion you probably should say not all applications... will
run since clearly you don't mean
Joerg Schilling wrote:
And this is definitely wrong!
Unfortunately, Linux-2.6 did change iterfaces in a way so it is impossible
to run all applications compiled under earlier releases.
To avoid confusion you probably should say not all applications... will
run since clearly you don't mean that
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 7 16:34:14 2004
If you unpack this on a Linux-2.6 system using a star binary
that has been compiled on Linux-2.4, you will extract a character
special with minor 88 instead of minor 7000.
This proves that you cannot run binaries from Linux-2.4 on
Linux-2.6
On Thu 8 January 2004 13:47, Joerg Schilling wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 7 16:34:14 2004
If you unpack this on a Linux-2.6 system using a star binary
that has been compiled on Linux-2.4, you will extract a
character special with minor 88 instead of minor 7000.
This proves
From: Andy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
star -tv /tmp/cdev.tar.bz2
...
255 7000 crw-r--r-- 1 root/other Jan 5 22:06 2004 cdev
AS you see, this is a tar archive that includes a character
special with major 255 and minor 7000.
Postulate. Restoring of device entries from another
From: Lourens Veen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, you did not. You said, and I quote (module formatting):
It has _always_ been wrong to compile software only once for
different kernel versions (e.g. for compile Linux-2.4 and later
install a 2.2 kernel on the so created system).
Why do you repeat
On Thu 8 January 2004 16:24, Joerg Schilling wrote:
From: Lourens Veen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, you did not. You said, and I quote (module formatting):
It has _always_ been wrong to compile software only once for
different kernel versions (e.g. for compile Linux-2.4 and later
install a 2.2
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:24:22PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
It _is_ wrong to assume that a random program compiled for OS revision A
will run correctly on OS revision B
Definetly NOT.
e.g. grep.
grep only uses libc-interface. As long as the program - libc interface
is stable it will
On Thu 8 January 2004 17:07, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:24:22PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
It _is_ wrong to assume that a random program compiled for OS
revision A will run correctly on OS revision B
Definetly NOT.
e.g. grep.
Aaargh!
Perhaps we should
From: Matthias Schniedermeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It _is_ wrong to assume that a random program compiled for OS revision A
will run correctly on OS revision B
Definetly NOT.
e.g. grep.
grep only uses libc-interface. As long as the program - libc interface
is stable it will have no problem
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Lourens Veen wrote:
On Thu 8 January 2004 17:07, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:24:22PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
It _is_ wrong to assume that a random program compiled for OS
revision A will run correctly on OS
On Thu 8 January 2004 18:42, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Lourens Veen wrote:
On Thu 8 January 2004 17:07, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:24:22PM +0100, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
It _is_ wrong to assume that a random
From: Matthias Schniedermeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Take this as given.
Same as you can assume that the libc of Solaris 9 is compiled on Solaris
9 and is forward compatible to Solaris 8.
Libc from Solaris 2.6 definitely does not work on Solaris 2.5.1
Libc from Solaris 7 definitely does not
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:17:16PM +0100, Lourens Veen wrote:
On Thu 8 January 2004 18:42, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Lourens Veen wrote:
On Thu 8 January 2004 17:07, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:24:22PM +0100,
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:02:57PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
From: Matthias Schniedermeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Take this as given.
Same as you can assume that the libc of Solaris 9 is compiled on Solaris
9 and is forward compatible to Solaris 8.
Libc from Solaris 2.6
Arguing about MAY vs WILL and the proper use of a colon
is just a waste of time don't you think? How does any
of this noticeably impact _your_ life?
Any chance this thread can be put to rest here?
On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 05:47, Lourens Veen wrote:
On Thu 8 January 2004 13:47, Joerg Schilling
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:10:54AM -0800, Scott Bronson wrote:
Any chance this thread can be put to rest here?
You could try invoking Godwin's Law
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu 8 January 2004 20:10, Scott Bronson wrote:
Arguing about MAY vs WILL and the proper use of a colon
is just a waste of time don't you think? How does any
of this noticeably impact _your_ life?
Well, the original statement was false (at least IMHO, it seems we
disagree a bit, about what
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 7 16:34:14 2004
If you unpack this on a Linux-2.6 system using a star binary
that has been compiled on Linux-2.4, you will extract a character
special with minor 88 instead of minor 7000.
This proves that you cannot run binaries from Linux-2.4 on
Linux-2.6
On Thu 8 January 2004 16:24, Joerg Schilling wrote:
From: Lourens Veen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No, you did not. You said, and I quote (module formatting):
It has _always_ been wrong to compile software only once for
different kernel versions (e.g. for compile Linux-2.4 and later
install a 2.2
On Thu 8 January 2004 18:42, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Lourens Veen wrote:
On Thu 8 January 2004 17:07, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:24:22PM +0100, Joerg Schilling
wrote:
It _is_ wrong to assume that a random
From: Matthias Schniedermeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Take this as given.
Same as you can assume that the libc of Solaris 9 is compiled on Solaris
9 and is forward compatible to Solaris 8.
Libc from Solaris 2.6 definitely does not work on Solaris 2.5.1
Libc from Solaris 7 definitely does not
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:17:16PM +0100, Lourens Veen wrote:
On Thu 8 January 2004 18:42, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Lourens Veen wrote:
On Thu 8 January 2004 17:07, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:24:22PM +0100,
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 11:10:54AM -0800, Scott Bronson wrote:
Any chance this thread can be put to rest here?
You could try invoking Godwin's Law
On Thu 8 January 2004 20:10, Scott Bronson wrote:
Arguing about MAY vs WILL and the proper use of a colon
is just a waste of time don't you think? How does any
of this noticeably impact _your_ life?
Well, the original statement was false (at least IMHO, it seems we
disagree a bit, about what
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 6 17:38:11 2004
You did just prove that there is a difference between an attempt for a test
and a real test!
Try to unpack and verify this archive:
Isn't it typical? I've complained about wording of statement attached to
usage of major macro in cdda2wav and
On Wed 7 January 2004 11:37, Joerg Schilling wrote:
For all people who have enough background knowledge in software
engineering, here is a text that I did write for another purpose:
/*---
---*/
star -tv /tmp/cdev.tar.bz2
star -tv /tmp/cdev.tar.bz2
...
255 7000 crw-r--r-- 1 root/other Jan 5 22:06 2004 cdev
AS you see, this is a tar archive that includes a character
special with major 255 and minor 7000.
Postulate. Restoring of device entries from another architecture was
never guaranteed to provide
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 6 17:38:11 2004
You did just prove that there is a difference between an attempt for a test
and a real test!
Try to unpack and verify this archive:
Isn't it typical? I've complained about wording of statement attached to
usage of major macro in cdda2wav and
On Wed 7 January 2004 11:37, Joerg Schilling wrote:
For all people who have enough background knowledge in software
engineering, here is a text that I did write for another purpose:
/*---
---*/
star -tv /tmp/cdev.tar.bz2
You did just prove that there is a difference between an attempt for a test
and a real test!
Try to unpack and verify this archive:
Isn't it typical? I've complained about wording of statement attached to
usage of major macro in cdda2wav and discussion is immediately led to
other spheres.
You did just prove that there is a difference between an attempt for a test
and a real test!
Try to unpack and verify this archive:
Isn't it typical? I've complained about wording of statement attached to
usage of major macro in cdda2wav and discussion is immediately led to
other spheres.
From: Andy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cdda2wav (By Heiko Eißfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED]):
- Now using the major() macro for some Linux duties.
WARNING to creators of Linux distributions:
As such wording sounds very much as political statement, I feel
necessity to comment on
As such wording sounds very much as political statement, I feel
necessity to comment on following.
It is definitely not politocal but it tries to be so simple that even
the morons you typically meet on the LKML will understand it :-(
Has it occurred to you that, after posting that thing
From: Andy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let us make it short .
OK, I've just compiled second star binary. I mean I've had one compiled
under 2.4 (left from Dec 2002, when you posted request for help with
mkisofs -dvd-video:-), so I've compiled one under 2.6 too... Well, I
can't confirm your
From: Andy Polyakov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cdda2wav (By Heiko Eißfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED]):
- Now using the major() macro for some Linux duties.
WARNING to creators of Linux distributions:
As such wording sounds very much as political statement, I feel
necessity to comment on
Cdda2wav (By Heiko Eißfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED]):
- Now using the major() macro for some Linux duties.
WARNING to creators of Linux distributions:
As such wording sounds very much as political statement, I feel
necessity to comment on following.
It is definitely not
From: Volker Kuhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WARNING: if you continue to include an illegal reply email address in your
mailings, you will be ignored in future!
Can you be more specific about the bugs please? Or does that contain
bugs simply refer to that they're not the latest alpha version?
Cdda2wav (By Heiko Eißfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED]):
- Now using the major() macro for some Linux duties.
WARNING to creators of Linux distributions:
As such wording sounds very much as political statement, I feel
necessity to comment on following.
It has _always_ been
NEW features of cdrtools-2.01a22:
Please have a look at the German open Source Center BerliOS at www.berlios.de
BerliOS will continue to support free hosting of cryptography projects even
when US laws change and don't allow to host cryptography projects in the USA.
Also look at
All recent SuSE distributions contain inofficial and modified versions
of cdrecord that are known to contain bugs and open new security holes.
Can you be more specific about the bugs please? Or does that contain
bugs simply refer to that they're not the latest alpha version?
What
From: Volker Kuhlmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All recent SuSE distributions contain inofficial and modified versions
of cdrecord that are known to contain bugs and open new security holes.
Can you be more specific about the bugs please? Or does that contain
bugs simply refer to that
All recent SuSE distributions contain inofficial and modified versions
of cdrecord that are known to contain bugs and open new security holes.
Can you be more specific about the bugs please? Or does that contain
bugs simply refer to that they're not the latest alpha version?
What
43 matches
Mail list logo
