| |||||||||||||
Prior art (FatELF: universal binaries for Linux)Prior art (FatELF: universal binaries for Linux)Posted Oct 29, 2009 14:14 UTC (Thu) by slougi (subscriber, #58033)In reply to: Prior art (FatELF: universal binaries for Linux) by clugstj Parent article: FatELF: universal binaries for Linux
Read those e-mails.
Your script would fail in certain scenarios. For example, running a x86 binary on an amd64 system.
(Log in to post comments)
Prior art (FatELF: universal binaries for Linux) Posted Oct 29, 2009 14:51 UTC (Thu) by dtlin (✭ supporter ✭, #36537) [Link] $ uname -m x86_64 $ setarch i386 uname -m i686I don't see what the problem is.
Prior art (FatELF: universal binaries for Linux) Posted Oct 30, 2009 21:30 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] My initial reaction was the same: that we already have multi-file packages, so isn't it more natural just to have a binary for each architecture? But when I thought about the real complaints (above) about the difficulty of living with /lib and /lib64, I realized this: which binary is required is a characteristic of facilities under user space -- kernel and/or machine. So placing the burden of choosing one on user space is wrong. And files are user space things; the kernel should not navigate directories. Now, where having multiple architecture binaries in a single system (filesystem) isn't useful, I would prefer a package with multiple binaries, where the installer installs in /lib the relevant one.
|
|||||||||||||