Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!simtel!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!in1.uu.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!asami
From: asami@cs.berkeley.edu (Satoshi ASAMI)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Packages on a 386?
Date: 10 Aug 1995 22:17:37 GMT
Organization: CS Div. - EECS, The University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <ASAMI.95Aug10151737@forgery.cs.berkeley.edu>
References: <3vv184$qou@cronkite.cisco.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: forgery.cs.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jwampler@cisco.com's message of 4 Aug 1995 21:57:23 PST
In article <3vv184$qou@cronkite.cisco.com>
jwampler@cisco.com (Jim Wampler) writes:
* I love FreeBSD, thank you all you folks who have worked on it!
You're welcome! I didn't do much, but it's always nice to be thanked! :)
* However, the first package I chose to install (top - imagine that :-)
* immediately exited with a floating point exception. So it looks like
* it was compiled for a 486, or at least a 386/387. Are all the packages
* this way? Or just some and I take my chances?
All packages should run regardless of processors, the kernel will take
care of the differences (it will use the emulator if there is no FPU,
etc.).
If this makes you feel any better, you were *extremely* unlucky, in
that you chose the single package that exerts the incompatibility
between the 2.1* (-stable) and the 2.2* (-current) lineage of sources,
out of the, um, 250+ existing packages! Congratulations! Now go buy
a lottery ticket, I'll guarantee you you won't win a jackpot! :>
Please try top-3.3-stable, this should work for the 2.1* versions.
* Also, is there an interesting reason that there is an fvwm package
* in the 2.0.5 packages directory, but not in the 2.1.0 directory?
Yes. It hasn't changed, so we didn't recompile it. :) The order you
(as a snap user) should look for packages is:
your-snap/packages (which is actually a symbolic link to ../packages)
packages (the same as above in your case)
2.0.5-rel/packages
We don't rebuild packages unless we absolutely need to, we're lazy. :)
I agree this is confusing, I'll reorganize the packages directory
later. Thanks for the report!
Satoshi