Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:07:24 +0100 From: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@ulyssis.org> To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> Cc: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de>, Mikhail Teterin <mi+k@aldan.algebra.com> Subject: Re: flash9 checklist (was: flash-9, 10 on FreeBSD) Message-ID: <200810311407.25844.tijl@ulyssis.org> In-Reply-To: <20081031090822.GA41624@freebsd.org> References: <200810280859.24048@aldan> <200810302250.m9UMoHpl014714@saturn.kn-bremen.de> <20081031090822.GA41624@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday 31 October 2008 10:08:22 Roman Divacky wrote: >>> we can expect problems in future >>> when people dont mount linprocfs.. >>> >>> maybe we should put some checks into linuxulator... >> >> Or if we put something in browser startup scripts it also needs to >> be in the native ones since those can use linux flash via wrappers >> as well. > > the native ff + linuxflash uses linuxulator (ie. /compat/linux/proc) ? > I dont think so... Yes, it does. The wrapper plugin loaded by the browser is native, but the actual plugin runs in a separate linuxulator process and needs linprocfs.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200810311407.25844.tijl>