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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAByVWPVYYkZQZtwF10%2BfA8rDbofer-3PRYN37y-OCrnpuX2guw>