On 10/28/05, Micah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Kirchner wrote:
> > On 10/27/05, Will Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a
> >>little surprised there isn't (AFAICT) anything descriptive in
> >>file(1)'s manpage or /u/s/mi
David Kirchner wrote:
On 10/27/05, Will Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a
little surprised there isn't (AFAICT) anything descriptive in
file(1)'s manpage or /u/s/mi/magic that would explain the
discrepancy. Didn't see anything i
On 10/27/05, Will Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a
> little surprised there isn't (AFAICT) anything descriptive in
> file(1)'s manpage or /u/s/mi/magic that would explain the
> discrepancy. Didn't see anything in quick looks thro
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:36:18AM -0700, Micah wrote:
> In other words, it's not file that broken, but /every/ executable
> on the broken machine is broken. Now why would that be? A
> compiler flag or something?
Must be -- some flag produces unique bits in the executables. I'm a
little surprise
Will Maier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 06:51:21AM -0700, Micah wrote:
I have a 5.4 system, /do/ go into single user when upgrading, and
file does /not/ report FreeBSD version. I get the same output you
do. It would be nice to know why this works on some systems and
not on others.
Consid
Will Maier wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 06:51:21AM -0700, Micah wrote:
I have a 5.4 system, /do/ go into single user when upgrading, and
file does /not/ report FreeBSD version. I get the same output you
do. It would be nice to know why this works on some systems and
not on others.
Consid
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 06:51:21AM -0700, Micah wrote:
> I have a 5.4 system, /do/ go into single user when upgrading, and
> file does /not/ report FreeBSD version. I get the same output you
> do. It would be nice to know why this works on some systems and
> not on others.
Consider diff'ing the
Andrew P. wrote:
On 10/27/05, Joshua Tinnin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed 26 Oct 05 09:18, "Andrew P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/26/05, Robert Huff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew P. writes:
> file /usr/bin/man
>
> on my machine outputs:
>
> /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB execu
On 10/27/05, Joshua Tinnin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed 26 Oct 05 09:18, "Andrew P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/26/05, Robert Huff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Andrew P. writes:
> > > > > file /usr/bin/man
> > > > >
> > > > > on my machine outputs:
> > > > >
> > > > > /usr
On Wed 26 Oct 05 09:18, "Andrew P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/26/05, Robert Huff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Andrew P. writes:
> > > > file /usr/bin/man
> > > >
> > > > on my machine outputs:
> > > >
> > > > /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version
> > > > 1 (
On 10/26/05, Robert Huff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andrew P. writes:
> > > file /usr/bin/man
> > >
> > > on my machine outputs:
> > >
> > > /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1
> > > (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4-CURRENT (rev 3), dynamically linked
> > > (uses sh
Andrew P. writes:
> > file /usr/bin/man
> >
> > on my machine outputs:
> >
> > /usr/bin/man: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1
> > (FreeBSD), for FreeBSD 5.4-CURRENT (rev 3), dynamically linked
> > (uses shared libs), stripped
>
> Oh, it's just that file hasn't leared an
On 10/26/05, Michael C. Shultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 October 2005 00:01, Andrew P. wrote:
> > On 10/26/05, Will Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote:
> > > > How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different v
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 00:01, Andrew P. wrote:
> On 10/26/05, Will Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote:
> > > How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions
> > > without COMPAT* in the kernel?
> >
> > file (1)
>
>
On 10/26/05, Will Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote:
> > How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions
> > without COMPAT* in the kernel?
>
> file (1)
>
I don't mean to push it, but how file would ever help
me to know s
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:24:54AM +0400, Andrew P. wrote:
> How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on different versions
> without COMPAT* in the kernel?
file (1)
> One can always carefully examine the output of ldd, readelf and
> other such tools, but that requires much knowledge and a sma
How to tell? Apart from trying to launch it on
different versions without COMPAT* in the
kernel?
One can always carefully examine the output
of ldd, readelf and other such tools, but that
requires much knowledge and a small lab
with all kinds of BSD's set up. Is there a
better way?
___
17 matches
Mail list logo
