Quoting Samuel Thibault (2013-08-29 12:32:50) > Justus Winter, le Thu 29 Aug 2013 12:16:11 +0200, a écrit : > > The patches were also ment to address the complexity^Wsheer size of > > the code. That is why I wanted to remove them, #ifdef'ing it out has a > > cost, not a runtime one but for anyone hacking on /hurd/exec. > > Yes, the BFD code was making the whole exec code a lot more complex to > understand. Since even the TODO talks about ditching it away, and > reviving and maintaining it would be a burden, it's better to just not > keep it, and have readable exec instead.
Agreed, the BFD stuff was much more intrusive. > > Out of curiosity, why do you consider this feature interesting? > > At least to show flexibility of the exec server. The difference between > the BFD code and the gzip/bzip2 code is that the latter makes the whole > exec code complex, while the gzip/bzip2 support only has a couple of > hooks, so even if the feature doesn't seem so appealing, the maintenance > cost is light. But couldn't the same be archived by installing an unzipping storeio translator on the zipped executable? It is more explicit, but I'd argue that this is a good thing in this case and shows the flexibility of the Hurd as a whole. Justus