On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 09:33:32PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
any change that has to be added to 4.x tomake it run on 5.x is the wrong
answer.
4.x binaries should all run on 5.x (unless something was accidentally
committed to 4.x that should be backed out.)
any change for allowing 4.x
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:15:30AM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
I can replace my eaccess(2) patch for test(1) by a workaround I am
planning to commit to -stable. Is it desirable solution?
Well, this won't solve my problem since I'm trying to run the 5.x
binary. I'm not immediately familiar
On 02:00-0800, Mar 13, 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:15:30AM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
I can replace my eaccess(2) patch for test(1) by a workaround I am
planning to commit to -stable. Is it desirable solution?
Well, this won't solve my problem since I'm
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 01:24:36PM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
On 02:00-0800, Mar 13, 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:15:30AM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
I can replace my eaccess(2) patch for test(1) by a workaround I am
planning to commit to -stable. Is it
On 03:38-0800, Mar 13, 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 01:24:36PM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
On 02:00-0800, Mar 13, 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 08:15:30AM +0300, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
I can replace my eaccess(2) patch for test(1) by a
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
any change that has to be added to 4.x tomake it run on 5.x is the wrong
answer. 4.x binaries should all run on 5.x (unless something was
accidentally committed to 4.x that should be backed out.)
any change for allowing 4.x binaries to run on
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Maxim Konovalov wrote:
I believe you have :-)
ummm but we =have never guaranteed that N+1 binaries will run on N
systems.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Subject says it all, really; this is the cause of part of my problems
in getting 5.x packages built on the bento cluster, because it seems
that /bin/sh has come to depend on this syscall. Executing a 5.x
/bin/sh on a 4.x system causes a SIGSYS if it hits this code
(e.g. test -x /some/binary)
On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 07:12:11PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Subject says it all, really
Herf. Subject is the wrong way around; this breaks execution of 5.x
binaries under 4.x, not the other way around.
; this is the cause of part of my problems
in getting 5.x packages built on the bento
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Subject says it all, really; this is the cause of part of my problems in
getting 5.x packages built on the bento cluster, because it seems that
/bin/sh has come to depend on this syscall. Executing a 5.x /bin/sh on
a 4.x system causes a SIGSYS if
On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 10:59:07PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Subject says it all, really; this is the cause of part of my problems in
getting 5.x packages built on the bento cluster, because it seems that
/bin/sh has come to depend on this
rwatson Certainly we can MFC eaccess(), but that's not going to make
rwatson the problem go away. Fundamentally our model is backward
rwatson compatibility, not forward compatibility. We need to build
rwatson 5.0 packages on 5.0.
That's why I build FreeBSD 5-current snapshots on a 5-current
Kris, Robert,
On 20:11-0800, Mar 12, 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 10:59:07PM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Subject says it all, really; this is the cause of part of my problems in
getting 5.x packages built on the bento
any change that has to be added to 4.x tomake it run on 5.x is the wrong
answer.
4.x binaries should all run on 5.x (unless something was accidentally
committed to 4.x that should be backed out.)
any change for allowing 4.x binaries to run on 5.x should be done on the
5.x side of things,
On 21:33-0800, Mar 12, 2002, Julian Elischer wrote:
any change that has to be added to 4.x tomake it run on 5.x is the wrong
answer.
4.x binaries should all run on 5.x (unless something was accidentally
committed to 4.x that should be backed out.)
any change for allowing 4.x binaries to
15 matches
Mail list logo
