Re: (not) simplifying dpkg-shlibdeps with readelf

Hector Oron writes: > 2010/4/28 Russ Allbery : > [...] >> I'm not sure what you mean by "flat binaries" here. > I meant > http://www.beyondlogic.org/uClinux/bflt.htm Ah, thank you. I hadn't known about that. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) --

Re: (not) simplifying dpkg-shlibdeps with readelf

Hi, On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:24:35AM +0200, Hector Oron wrote: > > I see no reason why embedded platforms can't use ELF.  ELF is very common > > in the embedded world even entirely apart from Linux. There is some effort to move from bFLT to something called "FDPIC ELF", which is basically ELF

Re: (not) simplifying dpkg-shlibdeps with readelf

Hello, 2010/4/28 Russ Allbery : [...] > I'm not sure what you mean by "flat binaries" here. I meant http://www.beyondlogic.org/uClinux/bflt.htm [...] > I see no reason why embedded platforms can't use ELF.  ELF is very common > in the embedded world even entirely apart from Linux. Sometimes ELF

Re: (not) simplifying dpkg-shlibdeps with readelf

Hector Oron writes: > 2010/4/27 Russ Allbery : >> I have a hard time imagining Debian ever supporting non-ELF >> targets.  We'd need to maintain a completely separate libc, for >> instance, since I'm fairly sure glibc is ELF only. > uClibc is on the archive (not usable for runtime), it was also

Re: (not) simplifying dpkg-shlibdeps with readelf

Hello Russ, 2010/4/27 Russ Allbery : > I have a hard time imagining Debian ever supporting non-ELF targets.  We'd > need to maintain a completely separate libc, for instance, since I'm > fairly sure glibc is ELF only. uClibc is on the archive (not usable for runtime), it was also added to dpkg as

Re: (not) simplifying dpkg-shlibdeps with readelf

Hector Oron writes: > Excuse my ignorance, but I have a question regarding non-ELF targets, > Are you sure Debian is tight to *only* ELF target support? > Aren't we going to support non-ELF targets anytime? > On the other hand I can see the benefit on readelf compared to objdump. I have a har

Re: (not) simplifying dpkg-shlibdeps with readelf

Hi, 2010/4/23 Jonathan Nieder : > Even if all supported targets use ELF, I don’t think it would justify > the churn.  The main advantages: > >  - readelf is tiny and works for all ELF targets. >   By contrast, multi-target objdump is large and its Debian package >   only supports the targets that

Re: (not) simplifying dpkg-shlibdeps with readelf

Loïc Minier writes: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> - readelf is tiny and works for all ELF targets. >>By contrast, multi-target objdump is large and its Debian package >>only supports the targets that were considered worth the trouble >>when it was last built. >

Re: (not) simplifying dpkg-shlibdeps with readelf

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > - readelf is tiny and works for all ELF targets. >By contrast, multi-target objdump is large and its Debian package >only supports the targets that were considered worth the trouble >when it was last built. I guess you mean binutils-mult

(not) simplifying dpkg-shlibdeps with readelf

Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> If we can, dpkg-shlibdeps could be simplified a lot by using readelf >> instead of objdump. That’s something I would enjoy doing. > > In what way do you expect simplifications ? That was sloppy of me; sorry. Even if all sup