| |||||||||||||
SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failureSELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failurePosted Jun 23, 2010 20:47 UTC (Wed) by Frej (subscriber, #4165)In reply to: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure by cmccabe Parent article: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure
>FATELF seems uneccesary. Why not just put your 32-bit binaries in one filesystem, and your 64 bit ones in another. Then use unionFS to merge one or the other into your rootfs, depending on which architecture you're on. No need for a big new chunk of potentially insecure and buggy kernel code.
Assuming it's not a sin to distribute binaries, how would unionfs help when you download a binary?
>The reason why Apple invented FAT binaries is because they were interested in maintaining extensive binary compatibility with their old systems. Linux has never had this policy. Binaries that worked great on Fedora Core 9 probably won't work on Fedora Core 12, or Ubuntu 9.04, or whatever.
Well without FATelf you need two binaries for each Fedora Core release. But ofcourse if you just want linux for servers and admins - FATEF won't matter that much.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||||