On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 05:21:59PM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> So if we agree on using environment variables to pass options to
> qemu-user we next need to agree on how to name the options.
> The following commandline arguments exist (in order as they are checked
> in linux-user/main.c) and
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 05:52:50AM -0700, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> setting up a wrapper makes trivial cross-architecture chroots harder
> as you'll have to copy two binaries into the chroot, and i'm not sure
> if it would work at all, as the wrapper will need to somehow emulate
> it's own interpr
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:41:09AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 07:47:49AM +0200, josch wrote:
> > This could be avoided by setting the proposed environment variable
> > QEMU_LD_PREFIX to the just
> > created debian rootfs. As mentioned earlier, the usage of the -L option
>
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 01:24:47PM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
>
> @Geert Stappers:
>
> you are patching bsd-user/main.c and darwin-user/main.c as well. I take
> it that you did test your changes on those platforms? does it work there
> as well? I have no clue of darwin but is it really useful
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:41:09AM +0300, Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 07:47:49AM +0200, josch wrote:
> > This could be avoided by setting the proposed environment variable
> > QEMU_LD_PREFIX to the just
> > created debian rootfs. As mentioned earlier, the usage of the -L opti
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 07:47:49AM +0200, josch wrote:
> This could be avoided by setting the proposed environment variable
> QEMU_LD_PREFIX to the just
> created debian rootfs. As mentioned earlier, the usage of the -L option
> is not possible in this scenario because qemu-user is only implicitly
6 matches
Mail list logo
