"Gour-Gadadhara Dasa" wrote in message
news:20110410081339.04202...@atmarama.net...
>
>One of the reasons to switch to FreeBSD was to spend less time
>tinkering with the OS and "just use it".
I recently installed a FreeBSD virtual machine to try to make sure some of
my stuff worked there (Using
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 03:26:26 -0700
Ruben wrote:
> Let me address this, since I wrote the ldc, dmd, and dmd2 Makefiles
> in FreeBSD ports, after getting permission from Walter.
Thank you for your work.
> I simply marked the port as i386 since I read that there wasn't a
> 64-bit binary:
That's
One of the reasons to switch to FreeBSD was to spend less time
tinkering with the OS and "just use it".
I?m not familiar enough with FreeBSD, but the message from the subject
is what one gets when attempting to install DMD-2 on x86_64, so I
believe that 32bit executable on 64bit OS is not the rig
On 4/10/11 11:44 AM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Swollen pointers are a bit of a mute point to make as an argument for 32bit.
Please forgive this post--it's my editor mother coming out it me--but
the correct phrase is "moot point". See
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mute_point
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:56:25 -0700
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> There's just too many other bugs and issues that need to be
> addressed. So, it sucks, but it's not all that big a deal.
Fair-enough...I just commented that language compilers are usually not
applications which are run using multilibs
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:15:50 -0500
>
> Andrew Wiley wrote:
> > I run 64 bit Windows 7, where around 70% of my applications are 32
> > bit, and 64 bit Arch Linux, where multilib lets me install the 32 bit
> > version of most applications. If you go through the Linux kernel
> > archives, you'll f
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:15:50 -0500
Andrew Wiley wrote:
> I run 64 bit Windows 7, where around 70% of my applications are 32
> bit, and 64 bit Arch Linux, where multilib lets me install the 32 bit
> version of most applications. If you go through the Linux kernel
> archives, you'll find that runni
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> == Quote from Andrew Wiley (debio...@gmail.com)'s article
>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa
>> wrote:
>> > yOn Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:54:55 -0700
>> > Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> >
>> >> So, yeah, it sucks that dmd is only a
== Quote from Andrew Wiley (debio...@gmail.com)'s article
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa
> wrote:
> > yOn Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:54:55 -0700
> > Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >
> >> So, yeah, it sucks that dmd is only a 32-bit binary, and there are
> >> currently no plans for it
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa wrote:
> yOn Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:54:55 -0700
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
>> So, yeah, it sucks that dmd is only a 32-bit binary, and there are
>> currently no plans for it become a 64-bit binary,
>
> It's really strange to have 32bit executable
yOn Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:54:55 -0700
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> So, yeah, it sucks that dmd is only a 32-bit binary, and there are
> currently no plans for it become a 64-bit binary,
It's really strange to have 32bit executable on 64bit OS these days
and I?m running 64bit OS for years.
> Most 64-
On 4/9/2011 2:54 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 01:26:49 + (UTC)
>>
>> Jesse Phillips wrote:
>>> There is not plan to have dmd a 64bit executable. There have been
>>> reports that you can get it to build but support for it does not
>>> exist. However if you are interested in
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 01:26:49 + (UTC)
>
> Jesse Phillips wrote:
> > There is not plan to have dmd a 64bit executable. There have been
> > reports that you can get it to build but support for it does not
> > exist. However if you are interested in writing 64bit programs the
> > 32bit version c
Am 09.04.2011 09:34, schrieb Gour-Gadadhara Dasa:
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 01:26:49 + (UTC)
> Jesse Phillips wrote:
>
>> There is not plan to have dmd a 64bit executable. There have been
>> reports that you can get it to build but support for it does not
>> exist. However if you are interested in
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 01:26:49 + (UTC)
Jesse Phillips wrote:
> There is not plan to have dmd a 64bit executable. There have been
> reports that you can get it to build but support for it does not
> exist. However if you are interested in writing 64bit programs the
> 32bit version can still produ
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:57:07 +0200, Gour-Gadadhara Dasa wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm running Free/PC-BSD desktop now, and here is dmd-2 experience:
>
> [gour@atmarama] /home/gour# cd /usr/ports/lang/dmd2/ [gour@atmarama]
> /usr/ports/lang/dmd2# make install clean ===> dmd2-2.052 is only for
> i386,
Hello,
I'm running Free/PC-BSD desktop now, and here is dmd-2 experience:
[gour@atmarama] /home/gour# cd /usr/ports/lang/dmd2/
[gour@atmarama] /usr/ports/lang/dmd2# make install clean
===> dmd2-2.052 is only for i386, while you are running amd64.
*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/ports/lang/dmd2.
17 matches
Mail list logo
