On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 04:06:11PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder' > Serbinenko<phco...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Robert Millan<r...@aybabtu.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I thought of a possible solution to the grub-pe2elf problem. It seems that > >> it is burdensome to produce ELF binaries on Windows, but building PE > >> binaries > >> or even PE/win32 executables on GNU/Linux is not (thanks to Mingw32 > >> toolchain > >> which is available on most distributions). > >> > If you see pe2elf as being too much of a burden we may switch to > objconv: http://www.agner.org/optimize/. It's already used in > conjunction with Apple Mach-O toolchain. It's not a GNU project but is > licensed under GPL.
I don't understand this. Why is a requirement to install GNU binutils unreasonable, whereas a requirement to install objconv is not? -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
