Subject: [email@example.com: Re: Linux emulation (uname)]
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Allen Briggs <email@example.com>
Date: 09/26/2000 15:48:36
[ Erf. Sorry about the bogus list address, for those who noticed over
on tech-kern ...
original To: Manuel Bouyer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
original Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
original Subject: Re: Linux emulation (uname)
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 09:05:58PM +0200, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
> Or better, proc.curproc.emul.linux.osrelease (hum, as it's per-proc, maybe
> a proc.curproc.osrelease is enouth). This way we can set it per process.
In this case, it wasn't necessary. I could easily see it being an
In case anyone's wondering, I'm up to the same point that Ragge (?)
reached where the rpms are looking the packages.rpm(?) for dependancies
on /bin/sh, libdl.so.2, etc., and coming up short. I haven't looked
into that yet, but I think it's caused by not installing the RPMs for
suse_*, but converting them to another format for extraction.