Re: brandelf(1)
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 11:15:50AM +0100, Hauke Fath wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 20:33:47 - (UTC), Christos Zoulas wrote: > >> > >> Since it is such a niche tool, I would add it to pkgsrc (but base doesn't > >> hurt much either). > > > > I think that if FreeBSD has it in base, we should too to avoid POLA > > and since it is small, it does not matter much. > > Is it even relevant without installing the suse* packages? Are there > static linux binaries these days? Even static Linux binaries normally have ABI tags. Joerg
Re: brandelf(1)
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 11:15:50AM +0100, Hauke Fath wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 20:33:47 - (UTC), Christos Zoulas wrote: > >> > >> Since it is such a niche tool, I would add it to pkgsrc (but base doesn't > >> hurt much either). > > > > I think that if FreeBSD has it in base, we should too to avoid POLA > > and since it is small, it does not matter much. > > Is it even relevant without installing the suse* packages? Are there > static linux binaries these days? Yes, the binaries on which I had to use brandelf are static: xc8/v2.35/bin/xc8: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (GNU/Linux), statically linked, stripped xc8/v2.35/bin/xc8.orig:ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), statically linked, stripped -- Manuel Bouyer NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference --
Re: brandelf(1)
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 20:33:47 - (UTC), Christos Zoulas wrote: >> >> Since it is such a niche tool, I would add it to pkgsrc (but base doesn't >> hurt much either). > > I think that if FreeBSD has it in base, we should too to avoid POLA > and since it is small, it does not matter much. Is it even relevant without installing the suse* packages? Are there static linux binaries these days? Otherwise, I'd suggest to put it in pkgsrc. Cheerio, Hauke -- Hauke Fath Linnéweg 7 64342 Seeheim-Jugenheim Germany
Re: brandelf(1)
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 08:33:47PM -, Christos Zoulas wrote: > In article <20220117123329.ga19...@mail.duskware.de>, > Martin Husemann wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 12:28:51PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > >> Hello, > >> so, to be able to run linux binaries with don't have the Linux type > >> in its ELF header, I have ported FreeBSD's brandelf(1): > >> https://www.unix.com/man-page/freebsd/1/brandelf/ > >> brandelf -- mark an ELF binary for a specific ABI > >> > >> Should it go in base, or pkgsrc (or nowhere, it's not usefull enough) ? > >> It's very small - a single C file of 216 lines (including comments), the > >> binary is 9.1K. > > > >Since it is such a niche tool, I would add it to pkgsrc (but base doesn't > >hurt much either). > > I think that if FreeBSD has it in base, we should too to avoid POLA and since > it is small, it does not matter much. We want the OS's to behave similarly. I disagree. Binaries without correct ABI markers are the far exception on Linux, too. They are generally considered at least somewhat questionable. You have to go out of your way to create them. So no, there is no POLA here. Joerg
Re: brandelf(1)
In article <20220117123329.ga19...@mail.duskware.de>, Martin Husemann wrote: >On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 12:28:51PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: >> Hello, >> so, to be able to run linux binaries with don't have the Linux type >> in its ELF header, I have ported FreeBSD's brandelf(1): >> https://www.unix.com/man-page/freebsd/1/brandelf/ >> brandelf -- mark an ELF binary for a specific ABI >> >> Should it go in base, or pkgsrc (or nowhere, it's not usefull enough) ? >> It's very small - a single C file of 216 lines (including comments), the >> binary is 9.1K. > >Since it is such a niche tool, I would add it to pkgsrc (but base doesn't >hurt much either). I think that if FreeBSD has it in base, we should too to avoid POLA and since it is small, it does not matter much. We want the OS's to behave similarly. christos
Re: brandelf(1)
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 12:28:51PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > Hello, > so, to be able to run linux binaries with don't have the Linux type > in its ELF header, I have ported FreeBSD's brandelf(1): > https://www.unix.com/man-page/freebsd/1/brandelf/ > brandelf -- mark an ELF binary for a specific ABI > > Should it go in base, or pkgsrc (or nowhere, it's not usefull enough) ? > It's very small - a single C file of 216 lines (including comments), the > binary is 9.1K. Since it is such a niche tool, I would add it to pkgsrc (but base doesn't hurt much either). Martin
brandelf(1)
Hello, so, to be able to run linux binaries with don't have the Linux type in its ELF header, I have ported FreeBSD's brandelf(1): https://www.unix.com/man-page/freebsd/1/brandelf/ brandelf -- mark an ELF binary for a specific ABI Should it go in base, or pkgsrc (or nowhere, it's not usefull enough) ? It's very small - a single C file of 216 lines (including comments), the binary is 9.1K. -- Manuel Bouyer NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference --
