Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:35:05 -0500 (EST) | | From | "Ryan C. Gordon" <> | | Subject | Re: FatELF patches... |
> It's not the size of the kernel patch I'm worried about. What worries > me is the disk space needed when *all* my executables and libraries > are suddenly 3, 4, or 5 times the size they need to be.
Then don't make FatELF files with 5 binaries in it. Or don't make FatELF files at all.
I glued two full Ubuntu installs together as a proof of concept, but I think if Ubuntu did this as a distribution-wide policy, then people would probably choose a different distribution.
Then again, I hope Ubuntu uses FatELF on a handful of binaries, and removes the /lib64 and /lib32 directories.
> There is also the issue of speed to launch these things. It *has* to > be slower than executing a native file directly.
In that there will be one extra read of 128 bytes, yes, but I'm not sure that's a measurable performance hit. For regular ELF files, the overhead is approximately one extra branch instruction. Considering that most files won't be FatELF, that seems like an acceptable cost.
> It's far too easy to use computers already. That's the reason for the > spam problem.
Clearly that's going to remain as a philosophical difference between us, so I won't waste your time trying to dissuade you.
--ryan.
|  |