From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Mar 5 16:35:20 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (castles168.castles.com [208.214.165.168]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8879C15280 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:35:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA07389; Fri, 5 Mar 1999 16:29:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199903060029.QAA07389@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Christoph Kukulies Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: brandelf (necessary?) 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: Fri, 05 Mar 1999 16:29:36 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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? Unless the binaries are statically linked, this will always work. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message