Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:16:25 +0200 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> Cc: Alexander Best <alexbestms@wwu.de>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [patch] extending/completing brandelf's OS knowledge Message-ID: <20100125091625.GJ3877@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <20100125100129.92067vdtphv8owes@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <20100123133419.GI59590@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <permail-2010012314380880e26a0b00004e17-a_best01@message-id.uni-muenster.de> <20100123150817.GJ59590@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1001242127240.97671@qbhto.arg> <20100125100129.92067vdtphv8owes@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:01:29AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Doug Barton <dougb@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. If static linux binary contains .note.ABI-tag section, and I believe that relatively modern binaries do, then brand is autodetected. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAktdYWgACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4jTFgCfRcBg44IfIESGhJGRiVKqdQzO ceMAn3bOoWnk1HvIfXEA1/EgOez0chvR =O3wi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100125091625.GJ3877>