Thus spake Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mozilla, Galeon, and other browsers claim to be better, but
often fail to provide features that have been in Netscape
for forever.
You mean features like being stable, at least sometimes?
Efficiency? IMO, Mozilla has features up the kazoo, but the
Mozilla, Galeon, and other browsers claim to be better, but
often fail to provide features that have been in Netscape
for forever.
You mean features like being stable, at least sometimes?
Efficiency? IMO, Mozilla has features up the kazoo, but the
developers seem unwilling to pursue
Thus spake Michael WARDLE [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Gecko engine developed by the Mozilla Project, however seems
to be very good. I find Galeon quite nice, as it uses Mozilla's
quite capable HTML rendering engine, has its own well designed
GTK-based GUI, and has little of Mozilla's bloat.
You are blowing this out of proportion and not actually reading
what people are proposing. So far, the comments are about
removing a.out support from the base compiler and offering
a.out binutils and gcc _as ports_.
That would be sufficient for my needs (a matching gdb would be useful
too,
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Evans wrote:
Isn't this too old and security-holed to use? It stopped being packaged a
few releases ago. 4.5R has mainly:
/usr/local/lib/netscape-linux/communicator-linux-4.79.bin: ELF 32-bit LSB
executable, Intel 80386, version 1
Michael WARDLE wrote:
The Gecko engine developed by the Mozilla Project, however seems
to be very good. I find Galeon quite nice, as it uses Mozilla's
quite capable HTML rendering engine, has its own well designed
GTK-based GUI, and has little of Mozilla's bloat.
If it isn't broken, don't
On 04-Sep-2002 Richard Tobin wrote:
You are blowing this out of proportion and not actually reading
what people are proposing. So far, the comments are about
removing a.out support from the base compiler and offering
a.out binutils and gcc _as ports_.
That would be sufficient for my
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 16:54:02 +1000, Michael WARDLE [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
for Internet Explorer). I would suggest to anybody still using
Netscape 4 on a Unix platform that they try a replacement
browser, whether that be Mozilla, Galeon, or something else
(perhaps Opera or Konqueror).
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 23:32:22 +0100 (BST), Richard Tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
So they need a C compiler that can generate a.out format .o files, and
a linker that can link a.out format .o files against an a.out format
executable.
Not necessarily. There is always `objcopy', at least for
* De: Garrett Wollman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-09-04 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: aout support broken in gcc3 ]
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 23:32:22 +0100 (BST), Richard Tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
So they need a C compiler that can generate a.out format .o files, and
a linker that can link
You are blowing this out of proportion and not actually reading
what people are proposing. So far, the comments are about
removing a.out support from the base compiler and offering
a.out binutils and gcc _as ports_.
A port is fine -- but this was proposed much later in the
thread.
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:42:47PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:24:19PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
I thought it was part of the plan to drop all traces of a.out support in
5.x. Am I wrong?
We should be *very* careful to accurately describe what is
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
This is NOT a toolchain issue he is talking about, but a kernel one.
Please forget all about the toolchain issue. It is a non-issue. I and
kan are the only ones that it has inconvinced. Everyone else has been
able to totally ignore it. I'll
GCC being able to produce a.out format binaries has nothing to do with
the ability of a Lisp or Prolog to compile to object files,
Correct.
and read such, whether said object files be a.out or ELF or COFF or PECOFF or
Mach-O or ...
False. As I said, I have systems that read a.out format
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:42:47PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
yes binary support will remain.. if you need to generate new ones (?)
unpack a 2.2.6 system into a chroot tree (jail?) and make it there :-)
*sigh* This *still* isn't clear what is
Julian Elischer wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
This is NOT a toolchain issue he is talking about, but a kernel one.
Please forget all about the toolchain issue. It is a non-issue. I and
kan are the only ones that it has inconvinced. Everyone else has been
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Peter Wemm wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
This is NOT a toolchain issue he is talking about, but a kernel one.
Please forget all about the toolchain issue. It is a non-issue. I and
kan are the only ones that
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Peter Wemm wrote:
Julian Elischer wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
This is NOT a toolchain issue he is talking about, but a kernel one.
Please forget all about the toolchain issue. It is a non-issue. I and
kan are the only ones that
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:31:52 -0700 (PDT), Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
As long as I can set things up so that a chroot to an environment full
of 2.2.6 binaries will still work, then I can still support
sites with embedded 2.2.6 based things..
Others may find this a requirement too.
* De: Richard Tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-09-03 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: aout support broken in gcc3 ]
GCC being able to produce a.out format binaries has nothing to do with
the ability of a Lisp or Prolog to compile to object files,
Correct.
and read such, whether said
False. As I said, I have systems that read a.out format object files
and they would need to be ported to read ELF object files instead.
Furthermore, they write themselves out (after loading object files) in
a.out format, and would need to be ported to write themselves out
in ELF
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 11:32:22PM +0100, Richard Tobin wrote:
False. As I said, I have systems that read a.out format object files
and they would need to be ported to read ELF object files instead.
Furthermore, they write themselves out (after loading object files) in
a.out
Where exactly does GCC fit into the mix, making this impossible?
They compile Lisp (etc) to a C file, which they compile (with gcc) to
^^^
actually with as(1), because gcc is only generates assembler file,
which is then
On 03-Sep-2002 Bakul Shah wrote:
Where exactly does GCC fit into the mix, making this impossible?
They compile Lisp (etc) to a C file, which they compile (with gcc) to
^^^
actually with as(1), because gcc is only generates
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 09:31:52 -0700 (PDT), Julian Elischer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
As long as I can set things up so that a chroot to an environment full
of 2.2.6 binaries will still work, then I can still support
sites with embedded 2.2.6 based
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Bakul Shah wrote:
Where exactly does GCC fit into the mix, making this impossible?
They compile Lisp (etc) to a C file, which they compile (with gcc) to
^^^
actually with as(1), because gcc is only
Bruce Evans wrote:
Isn't this too old and security-holed to use? It stopped being packaged a
few releases ago. 4.5R has mainly:
/usr/local/lib/netscape-linux/communicator-linux-4.79.bin: ELF 32-bit LSB
executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs),
Apparently, On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:24:08PM +1000,
Bruce Evans said words to the effect of;
aout support is still required for a few things (mainly for compiling
some boot blocks), but is broken in gcc3 for at least compile-time
Which boot blocks?
assignments to long longs and
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
Apparently, On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:24:08PM +1000,
Bruce Evans said words to the effect of;
aout support is still required for a few things (mainly for compiling
some boot blocks), but is broken in gcc3 for at least compile-time
Which
Bruce Evans wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
Apparently, On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:24:08PM +1000,
Bruce Evans said words to the effect of;
aout support is still required for a few things (mainly for compiling
some boot blocks), but is broken in gcc3 for at
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Peter Wemm wrote:
Bruce Evans wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
Apparently, On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:24:08PM +1000,
Bruce Evans said words to the effect of;
aout support is still required for a few things (mainly for compiling
some
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 01:09:11 +1000 (EST)
Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except I just used it to compile biosboot :-). (I had more problems
with ufs2 changes than with the compiler.)
Actually, I agree. Not having a clean break in FreeBSD-3 was very
expensive. Support for running
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 11:34:48AM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 01:09:11 +1000 (EST)
Bruce Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except I just used it to compile biosboot :-). (I had more problems
with ufs2 changes than with the compiler.)
Actually, I agree. Not
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:29:05AM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
I think it should be turned off now. That will help shake out any issues
and people complaining that it is gone. The sooner the better.
It isn't a simple knob to turn it off. It requires several source
changes.
To Unsubscribe:
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Peter Wemm wrote:
Bruce Evans wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Jake Burkholder wrote:
Apparently, On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:24:08PM +1000,
Bruce Evans said words to the effect of;
aout support is still
David O'Brien wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:29:05AM -0700, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
I think it should be turned off now. That will help shake out any issues
and people complaining that it is gone. The sooner the better.
It isn't a simple knob to turn it off. It requires several source
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:24:19PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
I thought it was part of the plan to drop all traces of a.out support in
5.x. Am I wrong?
We should be *very* careful to accurately describe what is being
suggested.
I believe it is that 5.x a.out binaries not be supported.
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:24:19PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
I thought it was part of the plan to drop all traces of a.out support in
5.x. Am I wrong?
We should be *very* careful to accurately describe what is being
suggested.
I
* De: David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-09-02 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: aout support broken in gcc3 ]
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:24:19PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
I thought it was part of the plan to drop all traces of a.out support in
5.x. Am I wrong?
We should be *very
yes binary support will remain.. if you need to generate new ones (?)
You say this as if no-one would want to do it, but I still use
programs (lisp and prolog compilers) that need to generate and read in
compiled .o files, and undump themselves after reading in such
files, and which are never
* De: Richard Tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-09-02 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: aout support broken in gcc3 ]
yes binary support will remain.. if you need to generate new ones (?)
You say this as if no-one would want to do it, but I still use
programs (lisp and prolog compilers
I think you're extremeley confused.
In what way? Or are you just being rude?
-- RIchard
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
* De: Richard Tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-09-02 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: aout support broken in gcc3 ]
I think you're extremeley confused.
In what way? Or are you just being rude?
GCC being able to produce a.out format binaries has nothing to do with
the ability of a Lisp
* De: David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ Data: 2002-09-02 ]
[ Subjecte: Re: aout support broken in gcc3 ]
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:24:19PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
I thought it was part of the plan to drop all traces of a.out support
in
5.x. Am I wrong?
We should be *very
44 matches
Mail list logo
