SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

Posted Jun 27, 2010 17:55 UTC (Sun) by Tet (guest, #5433)
In reply to: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure by nix
Parent article: SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

So we don't need completely arbitrary fat binaries at all: we need a 'fat dlopen()'

To solve this particular problem, yes. But then Ryan's FatELF release supported dlopen()ing fat shared libraries.

SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

Posted Jun 27, 2010 20:36 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (2 responses)

Yes, but if that's all you need to do, the kernel side of FatELF is superfluous.

SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

Posted Jun 28, 2010 8:53 UTC (Mon) by Tet (guest, #5433) [Link] (1 responses)

Oh agreed, and in this particular case, it's not necessary. However, there are other situations where full fat binaries might be a win. I just get extremely annoyed by people claiming that the whole concept of multi-arch binaries is useless just because they happen to not have a valid use for them, and are unable to see that others might have.

SELF: Anatomy of an (alleged) failure

Posted Jun 28, 2010 13:22 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

The attitude appears to be 'distributors don't need them therefore they are useless'. This seems, to me, more than a little shortsighted...