Quoting Doug Barton <do...@freebsd.org> (from Sun, 24 Jan 2010
21:29:42 -0800 (PST)):
On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Kostik Belousov wrote:
I do not see a need for such rudimentary ELF editor in the base at all.
So, perhaps it's time to move brandelf out of the base? And if so,
perhaps Alexander's contribution could be incorporated into a port
for it?
Personally I do not see a reason why his work can not go into the base
system. From a feature point of view the patch is giving brandelf a
little bit more freedom what it is allowed to change. When I look at
what I do/did with various tools in FreeBSD which where not intended
to be used like this but where useful in some cases, I do not think we
should enforce the policy to allow only stuff in brandelf which we are
able to emulate.
After the work of dchagin@/bz@, brandelf is needed only for the corner
cases, if at all.
Hmm, I was fooling around with some linux'y stuff the other day and
needed to brandelf it (don't remember what, obviously wasn't that
important). :)
If this happens again in the future, is it worth reporting
somewhere? (-emulation@ ?)
If it was to brandelf a static linux executable so that the FreeBSD
system does not reboot when executing the static linux executable,
then I would say it does not need to be reported and we still need
brandelf in the base system.
If someone says that exactly this case has been fixed recently: it
would be great to hear on emulation@ about cases where brandelf is
still needed.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #217:
You can't free a fish from water.
-- ST:DS9, "Past Tense, Part I"
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
