[bf1942] Linux server status report 2003-04-09
Karl-Petter Åkesson
karl-petter at home.se
Thu Apr 10 10:30:40 EDT 2003
Aah, I guess I was the one who didn't understand. Thanks for the answer
anyway. I will be patiently awaiting any Linux or FreeBSD releases. Keep
up the good work!
/Kalle
Fredriksson, Andreas wrote:
>
> 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?
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
More information about the Bf1942
mailing list