On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 12:57:43AM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Pavel Roskin<pro...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Hello, Marco! > > > > On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 16:27 +0200, Marco Gerards wrote: > > > >> There is another problem with this: the maintainance burden. People > >> know ELF, we have ELF and people will know ELF in the future. > >> Furthermore, as far as I am concerned, GNU/Linux is our main > >> platform. I do not mind supporting windows or so and we can support > >> it in a sane way, but changing our binary formats for it is one step > >> too far for me... > > > > There is actually a maintenance burden that is caused by the need to > > support the ELF format. We need to strip some sections from the modules > > for GRUB to process them correctly. > > > What about SELF? (coreboot format) If it's sane I would prefer to > share a format between these 2 projects.
I think the most important advantage of using ELF binaries is that it was widely available & very mature utilities to work with them. I don't know SELF in detail, but if it prevents us from e.g. running objdump on our binaries then I think it's a bad idea. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel