Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:35:38 +0430 From: mokhi <mokhi64@gmail.com> To: David Chisnall <theraven@freebsd.org> Cc: emulation@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD MachO File format, your comments on it. Message-ID: <CAByVWPVYYkZQZtwF10%2BfA8rDbofer-3PRYN37y-OCrnpuX2guw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7554521E-81AB-43DE-A7FC-A9F334F660B7@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAByVWPVv4bWb4D3ccSteraP51=J8%2BJkc=Rze9O%2B64ov5%2B9tG8Q@mail.gmail.com> <7554521E-81AB-43DE-A7FC-A9F334F660B7@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Hi. I'm agreed with point you told about improvements we can do for fat format (or more). And I'm ready to do them (with your helps, sure :D). But we need short steps and more of them (a local proverb :D) IMO. If we completely do this image activator, then we can have 2 sub plans for OSX emulation and/or fat data segment redesign. I saw netbsd's way of mach-kernel/darwin emulation. They have been stopped in porting/simulating quartz (the reason described lack of developers' interest IIRC), and that relates to OSX emulating. If we wanna complete/continue that way, first we need this image activator, what's your opinion about it? BTW, in brief I believe we can have strategies to do (sub plans) and it worth (at least for me, because I'll learn good things). What's your opinion? Best wishes, Mokhi.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAByVWPVYYkZQZtwF10%2BfA8rDbofer-3PRYN37y-OCrnpuX2guw>