Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 05:45:17 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: "freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org" <freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Actual benefits of amd64 over i386 Message-ID: <20050513124517.GA74918@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20050512195552.GA64910@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <BEA97082.3CD55%michael.hopkins@hopkins-research.com> <20050512195552.GA64910@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:55:52PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:43:46PM +0100, Michael Hopkins wrote: >=20 > > I have been suffering quite a bit of frustration recently with many por= ts > > that I need being 'i386 only' and no straightforward fixes. Maybe amd64 > > could be described as 'tier 1.5' ;o) >=20 > Look in the port's Makefile for the i386 only flag. Remove it > and trying building on amd64. Many ports run fine, but the > porter either does not have access to amd64 or the port simply > has not been tested on amd64. Make sure to submit PRs if you find any. Kris --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFChKFdWry0BWjoQKURAvWxAKDgukwiTvyz2SnA8aaZilZNd7nhtgCgtXWo iI8T2/G6Ftwl/sqvj/uqAy8= =g/wr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OgqxwSJOaUobr8KG--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050513124517.GA74918>