Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:47:18 +0930 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) Cc: freebsd-emulation@freefall.FreeBSD.org, freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: LINUX emulation and uname(3). Message-ID: <199710110717.QAA00666@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:54:17 -1000." <199710101754.HAA17182@pegasus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > The goal is to run software. If the emulation is incomplete then > chances are some things won't run -- which means the emulator fails it's > primary task. > > If you find the `Linux' report to be that hideous then make the output > configurable. But the default action should be as close to what Linux > produces as possible. > > If Linux software doesn't run, for any reason, then the emulator has failed. This is the issue of "bug comptatability". Let us evaluate the situation realistically, rather than wandering off ranting at the stars. We have had Linux ABI emulation for quite some time now (two, three years?). In that time there have been many improvements from many quarters, leading to a very useful feature set. There have also been a considerable number of problem reports, many of which have lead to fixes. In all those years, this is the first time that a problem has surfaced with the return value from the uname() call. It was also trivially resolved in a positive fashion after minor discussion with the software vendor. By my reading of this, there is no problem. mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710110717.QAA00666>