Paul B. Mahol wrote:
On 3/18/09, rasz raszo...@gmail.com wrote:
hi
i have 2 distinct questions, and first is, i installed a linux app
(binaries) and it failed
when run complaining that it needs a CPU with SSE instuctions enabled.
does anyone know what this is and related too?
For
On 3/18/09, rasz raszo...@gmail.com wrote:
hi
i have 2 distinct questions, and first is, i installed a linux app
(binaries) and it failed
when run complaining that it needs a CPU with SSE instuctions enabled.
does anyone know what this is and related too?
For example, mplayer check for SSSE3
rasz wrote:
hi
i have 2 distinct questions, and first is, i installed a linux app
(binaries) and it failed
when run complaining that it needs a CPU with SSE instuctions enabled.
does anyone know what this is and related too?
i am running 7.2-prerelease i386 with linux_base-fc4. the only
and it failed
when run complaining that it needs a CPU with SSE instuctions enabled.
does anyone know what this is and related too?
are you CPU SSE capable? if so, probably this app checks capabilities
through /proc
add this to /etc/fstab
linprocfs /compat/linux/proc linprocfs
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 06:14:59PM +0100, rasz wrote:
hi
i have 2 distinct questions, and first is, i installed a linux app
(binaries) and it failed
when run complaining that it needs a CPU with SSE instuctions enabled.
does anyone know what this is and related too?
SSE is an Intel
rasz wrote:
hi
i have 2 distinct questions, and first is, i installed a linux app
(binaries) and it failed
when run complaining that it needs a CPU with SSE instuctions enabled.
does anyone know what this is and related too?
i am running 7.2-prerelease i386 with linux_base-fc4. the only
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Adam Vande More a...@imedmobility.comwrote:
rasz wrote:
hi
i have 2 distinct questions, and first is, i installed a linux app
(binaries) and it failed
when run complaining that it needs a CPU with SSE instuctions enabled.
does anyone know what this is and
Thank you, I had to use a different linux library (linux-dri I think),
but it ended up working.
-Jim Stapleton
On 12/27/06, Boris Samorodov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 14:02:39 -0500 Jim Stapleton wrote:
I'm not sure what to do at this point, I'm trying to run a linux app
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 14:02:39 -0500 Jim Stapleton wrote:
I'm not sure what to do at this point, I'm trying to run a linux app
(binary) that requires libGLU.so.1, and it's an x86 binary.
It requires a linux library.
When I first ran it, it complained that the file libGLU.so.1 could not
be
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
Hey folks,
I'm noticing some odd behaviour with the linux compatability
recently. I have this small gnome app called gnome-run. It links against
a number of gnome libraries that I've copied from my linux partition over
to /compat/linux
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, [ISO-8859-1] Mikko Työläjärvi wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
Hey folks,
I'm noticing some odd behaviour with the linux compatability
recently. I have this small gnome app called gnome-run. It links against
a number of gnome libraries
Hello -
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, joe wrote:
I am atrying to compile a linux program under FreeBSD 4.7-STABLE. I
have installed linux_base but seem to be missing a number of files,
specifically header files.
DISCLAIMER - this is from a FreeBSD newbie.
If the program is not Linux-specific
7/25/2002 12:49:49 AM, Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In the last episode (Jul 24), Eric Dedrick said:
Okay, we got it. I had to run linux_base-6 and *not* any type of
linux_base (7.1) whatsoever.
Since it would appear that running linux_base-6 and linux_base(7.1)
are
mutually
Just to clarify, I mean that using portupgrade will
(hopefully, and in my experience, almost always) take
care of your dependencies during the upgrade process,
thus saving you from the IMO less preferable
alternative of running more than one version of a
port.
Have you tried portupgrade
In the last episode (Jul 25), Eric Dedrick said:
Just to clarify, I mean that using portupgrade will (hopefully, and
in my experience, almost always) take care of your dependencies
during the upgrade process, thus saving you from the IMO less
preferable alternative of running more than
PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
end of Re: linux compatability broken? from Eric Dedrick
--
Oh good, my dog found the chainsaw.
-Lilo, Lilo Stitch
Adam Weinberger
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://vectors.cx
end of Re: linux
Yup. See the new attachements. Again, thank you so much for the help.
On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Jul 24), Eric Dedrick said:
i'm going to have to ask that anybody else who knows please step in
here...
to know where it's dying, i'd need to see a
mozilla-bin RET read -1 errno 9 Bad file descriptor
11596 mozilla-bin CALL close(0x16)
11596 mozilla-bin RET close -1 errno 9 Bad file descriptor
11596 mozilla-bin CALL old.killpg
11596 mozilla-bin PSIG SIGSYS SIG_DFL
11596 mozilla-bin NAMI mozilla-bin.core
end of Re: linux
a while. Something
sounds really out of sync. Try rebuilding your kernel and modules, and
make sure they install into the right places.
--
Dan Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
end of Re: linux compatability broken? from Dan Nelson
--
Oh good, my dog found the chainsaw
oh wow i didn't notice that one.
run /compat/linux/sbin/ldconfig -p and see where it's looking for
ld-linux.so.2. the line should be something like:
ld-linux.so.2 (ELF) = /lib/ld-linux.so.2
but yeah, rebuild that kernel and modules!
I've rebuilt them so many times figuring that was the
was on CVS stable as of about noon yesterday. Unless there is a
patch or something that's not going to do any good.
$ /compat/linux/sbin/ldconfig -p
(other suff)...
ld-linux.so.2 (ELF) = /lib/ld-linux.so.2
end of Re: linux compatability broken? from Eric Dedrick
--
Oh good, my dog found
11590 ktrace NAMI /compat/svr4/lib/ld-linux.so.2
Why does it think the binary is an svr4 binary? That's why the
syscalls still don't match and you get SIGSYS after a while. Something
sounds really out of sync.
That's kind of what I thought. I tried re-brandelf'ing my version of
uhmm you can always kludge by ln -s /compat/linux /compat/svr4 ::)
just curious... do you have anything in /compat/svr4?
A symbolic link to /usr/compat/linux/lib.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
but then it's looking for /usr/compat/linux/lib/lib/ld-linux.so.2
make /compat/svr4 - /compat/linux
No change.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
In the last episode (Jul 24), Eric Dedrick said:
i'm going to have to ask that anybody else who knows please step in
here...
to know where it's dying, i'd need to see a kernel trace, isolating the
system call that it's b0rking on.
I've attached a couple. Thanks.
Try running ktrace
In the last episode (Jul 24), Eric Dedrick said:
Yup. See the new attachements. Again, thank you so much for the help.
11590 ktrace NAMI /compat/svr4/lib/ld-linux.so.2
Why does it think the binary is an svr4 binary? That's why the
syscalls still don't match and you get SIGSYS after a
If you don't load the svr4 module (and don't have options COMPAT_SVR4
in your config file), it shouldn't look in /compat/svr4. Try removing
those and see what happens.
Symlinking /compat/svr4 to /compat/linux won't do a thing, since the
syscalls don't match.
I get:
$ opera
ELF
$ opera
ELF interpreter /compat/svr4/lib/ld-linux.so.2 not found
[1] 11964 Abort trap
Now that's really confusing. Without the svr4 module loaded, the
string /compat/svr4 should not exist anywhere in the kernel (it's
defined in /sys/svr4/svr4_sysvec.c). There is simply no way you
Getting a bit better, but now it looks like it thinks the binary is a
native BSD one instead of Linux. If you run file
/usr/local/opera/lib/opera/5.05_tp1/opera-static, what does it print?
$ file /usr/local/opera/lib/opera/5.05_tp1/opera-static
In the last episode (Jul 24), Eric Dedrick said:
Getting a bit better, but now it looks like it thinks the binary is a
native BSD one instead of Linux. If you run file
/usr/local/opera/lib/opera/5.05_tp1/opera-static, what does it print?
$ file
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:52:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Dedrick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: linux compatability broken?
I recently made a few kernel changes so I remade world.
It would seem that linux compatability is now broken. At first things
were complaining
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:52:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Dedrick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: linux compatability broken?
I recently made a few kernel changes so I remade world.
It would seem that linux compatability is now broken. At first things
were
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:35:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Dedrick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Roman Neuhauser [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: linux compatability broken?
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 10:52:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Dedrick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
i hope you have a semi-recent ports tree, because you need
linux_base-7.1.
installing linux_base 7.1 from the ports gives me the following error.
Advice? Thanks.
---
(several screen fulls of the same type of stuff)...
file /usr/share/zoneinfo/right/US/Eastern from install of
of glibc-common-2.2.2-10 conflicts
with file from package glibc-2.1.2-11
*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/ports/emulators/linux_base.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
end of Re: linux compatability broken
of glibc-common-2.2.2-10 conflicts
with file from package glibc-2.1.2-11
*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/ports/emulators/linux_base.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
end of Re: linux compatability
36 matches
Mail list logo
