[bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09

[Fredriksson, Andreas]

Karl-Petter,

I'm completely aware what the linux emulation does and how it works
under FreeBSD.

Our current problem is with a dynamically linked binary under any operating
system since we are using the very latest GCC and the std C++ libraries
that accompany it. I'd say most current Linux installations couldn't run
our binary dynamically linked because of this since they are using
older C++ library installations.

This is why we are probably going for static linkage for the next release.

If this doesn't work on FreeBSD it isn't really a problem for us since we
are
developing a Linux server binary firsthand--but as I said earlier, time
permitting
we could provide the corresponding FreeBSD binary in the future.

Regards,
Andreas

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl-Petter Åkesson
To: bf1942 at icculus.org
Sent: 4/10/2003 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09

Hi Andreas an everyone else,

I think you maybe missunderstood Sam Evans question. In FreeBSD there 
exists a package 
(http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/url.cgi?ports/emulators/linux_base/pkg-descr
) 
that let you run Linux binaries directly on your FreeBSD machine. It's 
quite common for people to do. I've run the BF linux dedicated server 
for some time on my FreeBSD machine for instance. I'm also aware of that

statically linked libraries can cause problems for us FreeBSD user when 
we try to run Linux binaries. For instance look at the latest version of

TeamSpeak 
(http://www.teamspeak.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=d24767f46a633767982a
b70319af5778&forumid=46) 
where the statically linked libraries caused a lot of problems for 
FreeBSD people. I do not know the exact nature of these problems since I

did not dig into it myself but I believe you can find more about it on 
that forum.

/Kalle

Fredriksson, Andreas wrote:
>  
> FreeBSD isn't within the current scope of our development, but given
enough
> demand and when our releases have stabilized I don't see why we
couldn't
> compile a native FreeBSD version given that it supports what we need
(I
> haven't
> looked at it since early 4.x).
> 
> The goal now is to produce a good Linux version.
> 
> Regards,
> Andreas
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sam Evans
> To: bf1942 at icculus.org
> Sent: 4/9/2003 5:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Fredriksson, Andreas wrote:
> 
> 
>>Hi people,
>>I'm back at work now and atleast the fever is gone..
>>
>>I haven't been working full-time with the linux port since I'm doing
> 
> other
> 
>>things
>>here as well, but here's a short rundown of what has happened.
>>
>>- I have evaluated moving to completely static linkage of the server
> 
> binary
> 
>>for
>>  many reasons, but chiefly:
>>  1) DICE only needs to distribute and test for bugs in one version
>>  2) It allows almost everyone (kernel issues aside) to run the binary
>>
>>  I think this makes sense given that most people will have a fairly
> 
> new
> 
>>kernel,
>>  2.4.x atleast.
> 
> 
> I'm curious how this will affect folks who are running FreeBSD and
using
> Linux Compatibility mode?
> 
> 
>