Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
Little things that matter in language design
you do realize that the version you have is vunerable to exploits that are being used in the wild. Adobe decided to discontinue the 64 bit version instead of fixing it.
a fat plugin is only useful if you also have fat libraries everywhere. This directly contridicts posts earlier that said not to worry about the bload as the distros would still ship non-fat distros.
by the way, do you expect plugs to work across different operating systems as well so that you can have your $HOME NFS mounted on MACOS as well? where do you draw the line at what yo insist is needed?
SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure
Posted Jun 25, 2010 21:40 UTC (Fri) by Tet (subscriber, #5433)
Posted Jun 25, 2010 22:17 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
these two conflict, if you are going to support FAT binaries for every possible combination of options the distribution problem is much larger. If you are going to want the fat binary to support every possible system in a single binary it's going to be substantially larger.
it's not that I am so opposed to the idea of fat binaries as it is I don't see them as being that useful/desirable. the problems they are trying to address seem to be solvable by other means pretty easily, and there is not much more than hand waving over the cost.
Posted Jun 26, 2010 7:33 UTC (Sat) by Tet (subscriber, #5433)
I've outlined a case where it would be both useful and desirable to have them, and to date, I haven't seen any sensible alternatives being proposed.
Posted Jun 26, 2010 15:08 UTC (Sat) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
Just use two binary packages, with non-architecure-dependent stuff exactly the same, and arrange for the package manager to manage files belonging to several packages. RPM does this, and it works.
No need to screw around with the kernel, no need to have 3 versions of the package (arch 1, arch 2, fat).
Posted Jun 26, 2010 18:20 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)
But what you want to do here is that rpm will be able to merge files from different packages into a single file on disk. This won't work.
Posted Jun 26, 2010 21:49 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
Posted Jun 27, 2010 16:11 UTC (Sun) by Tet (subscriber, #5433)
Your "solution" doesn't solve the problem where application plugins are concerned. Firstly, the majority them are not installed using the system package manager in the first place, and secondly, it's utterly irrelevant anyway. You can't package the achitecture specific bits separately, because the application only looks for them in one place. As I said right at the start, it would be good to fix the applications, but there are a hell of a lot of them. Fat binaries would solve the problem. Your suggestions wouldn't, without first also patching the apps.
Posted Jun 27, 2010 17:17 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds