[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: FatELF patches...
Lets go down the list of "benefits"

- Separate downloads
- Doesn't work. The network usage would increase dramatically
pulling all sorts of unneeded crap.
- Already solved by having a packaging system (in fact FatELF is
basically obsoleted by packaging tools)

- Separate lib, lib32, lib64
- So you have one file with 3 files in it rather than three files
with one file in them. Directories were invented for a reason
- Makes updates bigger
- Stops users only having 32bit libs for some packages

- Third party packagers no longer have to publish multiple rpm/deb etc
- By vastly increasing download size
- By making updates vastly bigger
- Assumes data files are not dependant on binary (often not true)
- And is irrelevant really because 90% or more of the cost is

- You no longer need to use shell scripts and flakey logic to pick the
right binary ...
- Since the 1990s we've used package managers to do that instead.
I just type "yum install bzflag", the rest is done for me.

- The ELF OSABI for your system changes someday?
- We already handle that

- Ship a single shared library that provides bindings for a scripting
language and not have to worry about whether the scripting language
itself is built for the same architecture as your bindings.
- Except if they don't overlap it won't run

- Ship web browser plugins that work out of the box with multiple
- yum install just works, and there is a search path in firefox

- Ship kernel drivers for multiple processors in one file.
- Not useful see separate downloads

- Transition to a new architecture in incremental steps.
- IFF the CPU supports both old and new
- and we can already do that

- Support 64-bit and 32-bit compatibility binaries in one file.
- Not useful as we've already seen

- No more ia32 compatibility libraries! Even if your distro
doesn't make a complete set of FatELF binaries available, they can
still provide it for the handful of packages you need for 99% of 32-bit
apps you want to run on a 64-bit system.

- Argument against FatELF - why waste the disk space if its rare ?

- Have a CPU that can handle different byte orders? Ship one binary that
satisfies all configurations!

- Variant of the distribution "advantage" - same problem - its
better to have two files, its all about testing anyway

- Ship one file that works across Linux and FreeBSD (without a platform
compatibility layer on either of them).

- Ditto

- One hard drive partition can be booted on different machines with
different CPU architectures, for development and experimentation. Same
root file system, different kernel and CPU architecture.

- Now we are getting desperate.

- Prepare your app on a USB stick for sneakernet, know it'll work on
whatever Linux box you are likely to plug it into.

- No I don't because of the dependancies, architecture ordering
of data files, lack of testing on each platform and the fact
architecture isn't sufficient to define a platform

- Prepare your app on a network share, know it will work with all
the workstations on your LAN.

- Variant of the distribution idea, again better to have multiple
files for updating and management, need to deal with
dependancies etc. Waste of storage space.
- We have search paths, multiple mount points etc.

So why exactly do we want FatELF. It was obsoleted in the early 1990s
when architecture handling was introduced into package managers.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-02 01:03    [W:0.170 / U:0.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site