From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Mar 3 14:56:11 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from peedub.muc.de (newpc.muc.ditec.de [194.120.126.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C680E15786 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 14:55:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from garyj@peedub.muc.de) Received: from peedub.muc.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by peedub.muc.de (8.9.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id XAA32433; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 23:49:29 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <199903032249.XAA32433@peedub.muc.de> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Christoph Kukulies Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, garyj@peedub.muc.de Subject: Re: brandelf (necessary?) Reply-To: Gary Jennejohn In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 03 Mar 1999 09:50:59 +0100." <199903030850.JAA26515@gilberto.physik.RWTH-Aachen.DE> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 23:49:29 +0100 From: Gary Jennejohn Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Christoph Kukulies writes: >In an environment where FreeBSD needs to run linux binaries >that are shared with linux systems, would it do harm to brandelf >these binaries? Or in other words, would it be possible for FreeBSD >to autodetect that it's a linux ELF binary without having to brand it? > as long as the linuxulator is loaded (linux.ko) it does not seem to be necessary to brandelf Linux binaries. At least, that's been my experience. --- Gary Jennejohn Home - garyj@muc.de Work - garyj@fkr.dec.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message