Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Matt Thrailkill <> | | Date | Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:30:13 -0800 | | Subject | Re: FatELF patches... |
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:54 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:14:15 EST, "Ryan C. Gordon" said: > >> I probably wasn't clear when I said "distribution-wide policy" followed by >> a "then again." I meant there would be backlash if the distribution glued >> the whole system together, instead of just binaries that made sense to do >> it to. > > OK.. I'll bite - which binaries does it make sense to do so? Remember in > your answer to address the very valid point that any binaries you *don't* > do this for will still need equivalent hand-holding by the package manager. > So if you're not doing all of them, you need to address the additional > maintenance overhead of "which way is this package supposed to be built?" > and all the derivative headaches. > > It might be instructive to not do a merge of *everything* in Ubuntu as you > did, but only select a random 20% or so of the packages and convert them > to FatELF, and see what breaks. (If our experience with 'make randconfig' > in the kernel is any indication, you'll hit a *lot* of corner cases and > pre-reqs you didn't know about...)
I think he is thinking of only having FatELF binaries for binaries and libraries that overlap between 32- and 64-bit in a distro install. Perhaps everything that is sitting in /lib32 for example could instead be in a FatELF binaries in /lib, alongside the 64-bit binary.
A thought I had, that I don't think has come up in this thread: could it be practical or worthwhile for distros to use FatElf to ship multiple executables with different compiler optimizations? i586, i686, etc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |