Followup to: <8aiq4a$98d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Hoggarth)
In newsgroup: bofh.general
> >
> > That is slightly incomprehensible. After all, there's usually an ELF
> > .interp section pointing out which loader to use, and for Linux
> > executables that's something like (currently) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 -
> > whatever *BSD has there, I imagine it's different.
>
> I suspect that we're seeing elements of the "Cathedral vs. Bazaar"
> culture clash here.
>
> I'm not involved in BSD development (other than as a contented end
> user) but I venture to suggest that "usually" and "something like
> (currently)" are probably not concepts that the FreeBSD architects are
> going to be comfortable basing a solution on.
>
Perhaps, but it's still better that ALWAYS FAIL. However, FreeBSD
isn't the only OS that has these problems. Linux has these problems
in dealing with libc5 vs libc6 binaries, for example, which was the
main reason the libc5->6 jump was a *much* bigger mess than the
libc4->5 one was (there libraries were clearly partitioned by file
format.)
We probably should have something like a .system section that would
unambiguously resolve these kinds of things, even for libraries (which
obviously don't have .interp) and static binaries. Although it's not
going to happen overnight, getting this into binutils now should avoid
yet another mess next time something like this needs to happen.
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
