On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:31:33PM +0530, Subhro wrote:
> >What about my question about boot strapping? Does that ensure that
> > I could compile the world/kernel of 4.x on 5.3?
> >John
> No it does not. To be precise as far as I know, there is no way you
> can compile a na
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 06:53:31PM +0530, Subhro typed:
[...]
> First of all, I guess u got a bit too aggresive which I believe is
> unnecessary. Secondly, Try disassembling a 4.X binary and a 5.X
> binary, you will understand what I mean. I have done it myself and I
> am sure about it. Things st
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 02:45:38PM +0100, Walker, Michael wrote:
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Subhro
> >Yeh, I forgot to mention about the FPU. Thanks for adding up.
> Just on a side note here, could someone explain to me what a 'FPU-less'
> system actually is?
Ancient history. FPU m
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Subhro
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2004 2:24 PM
To: John Gillis; FreeBSD Questions
Subject: Re: Compiling 4-RELEASE on 5-STABLE
>> Depends. It it is a 486sx it will not run 5.x (support for FP
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:06:19 +0200, Erik Trulsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You do realise that you can install gcc 3.4 on a 4.x machine and run
> the binaries compiled with it?
> For C++ the ABI has changed a couple of times betwenn gcc 2.95 and gcc
> 3.4, but for C everything should work fi
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:01:35 +0200, Erik Trulsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you actually believe that I have a very nice bridge here you might
> be interested in. It is certainly the goal that things which worked on
> 4.x will continue to work in 5.x, and it might even work out that way
> i
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 09:52:52AM +0530, Subhro wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:11:05 -0400 (EDT), John Gillis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >My apologies if this has already been asked. I'd like to upgrade
> > my non-production machines to 5.3
>
> Nice idea
>
> once it is released, howe
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:31:33PM +0530, Subhro wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:18:25 -0400 (EDT), John Gillis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >however.. there are still things that could go wrong and I
> > prefer not to find out when a production server heads south or doesn't
> > have the right firm
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 18:11, John Gillis wrote:
> My apologies if this has already been asked. I'd like to upgrade
> my non-production machines to 5.3 once it is released, however I'd like
> the production servers to lag behind once I make sure everything is
> working right.
> This migh
On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 12:31:33PM +0530, Subhro wrote:
> >What about my question about boot strapping? Does that ensure that
> > I could compile the world/kernel of 4.x on 5.3?
> >John
> No it does not. To be precise as far as I know, there is no way you
> can compile a nat
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:18:25 -0400 (EDT), John Gillis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>however.. there are still things that could go wrong and I
> prefer not to find out when a production server heads south or doesn't
> have the right firmware on the RAID card.. so that's why I lag.
You can very well
> If everything is not working right, then 5.3 wouldnever be tagged
> STABLE. This is not Windows.
Granted, however I need to make sure that everything works fine in
my environment on my hardware with my software. The reason I use FreeBSD
is that I trust your release engineering moreso tha
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:11:05 -0400 (EDT), John Gillis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My apologies if this has already been asked. I'd like to upgrade
> my non-production machines to 5.3
Nice idea
once it is released, however I'd like
> the production servers to lag behind once I make sure e
13 matches
Mail list logo
