Running i386 binaries on amd64

[Julian H. Stacey]

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6vesd=E1n_G=E1bor?= wrote:
> Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> > gabor.kovesdan at t-hosting.hu wrote:
> >   
> >> either, you have to get the RELENG_6_1 
> >>     
> >
> > RELENG_6_1 is for stable beyond, which jim might not want,
> > to match release if uname -r == 6.1-RELEASE : RELENG_6_1_0_RELEASE
> >   
> RELENG_6_1 is *not* for stable, RELENG_6 is for stable.

Yes.	 
	(Tricky word stable, I know what you mean, but I've also
	seen so called stable that was quite unstable on occasion
	way back, when one was ill advised to track beyond fixes
	for the specific release that was really `stable' in the
	real normal non BSD sense of the word, not some
	inter-release-hopefully-maybe-but-sometime-not-stable thing ;-)

> RELENG_6_1 is 
> the security branch for 6.1-RELEASE,

Yes.
	(& thus more stable (in the real sense of the word) &
	invariant than the inter-release progressive RELENG_6 that
	FreeBSD names as 'Stable')

> this should be used instead of 
> RELENG_6_1_1_RELEASE.

"Could" Yes, "Should" No.  Not always. It's a matter of personal
requirement that we are not qualified to dictate to others.  Some
few people may _really_ _want_ exactly the release for their own
very good reasons eg QA stamped, part of embedded systems with
expected & tested & timed repose, relied on to interact exactly as
expected,  or more bluntly, simply 'cos they've been told they'll
be fired & or imprisoned (eg if in military or high rel. sytems),
if they change an authorised code base without authority.


> Currently, it doesn't make any sense, but later 
> security fixes will go to RELENG_6_1 

Yes.

>and it will be unwise to still use 
> RELENG_6_1_0_RELEASE.

Often unwise, not always, depends on situation. Granted if a firewall
or exposed to public access, generally good to have latest fixes.

-- 
Julian Stacey.  Consultant Unix Net & Sys. Eng., Munich.  http://berklix.com
Mail in Ascii, HTML=spam.     Ihr Rauch = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz.