On Fri, 13 Feb 2004, Eric Auer wrote:
> So UPX does not work at all for the "driver EXE" file format.
Right, but UPX is GPLed so we can change it so it will work for the
"driver EXE" format!
Do you expect us to read all your long emails when you can't even read my
short one?
have a nice fortnig
Hi, so aPack does not have an "unpack" function? UPX does have one, so
no dependency problems. You can remove the UPX stub at any time by de-UPXing
the binary again. Problem with UPX is that the author is very hard to reach,
even if you send him GPG / PGP mail (required to bypass his spamfilter)..
Hi all, I partially agree with Steve (-uso):
Lets get back to work.
But not to write a new kernel. Better option is to keep UPX as
default exepacker and let everybody have their own decision whether
they compile their own aPack-ed kernel. At most spreading an aPacked
kernel could conceivably troub
Hello,
[...] You could call the unpacking stub part of what is added due
to the compilation process. Or you could open the sources of the
(usually very short) unpacking stub. In either case you do not need
to open the sources of the executable packer itself.
Joergen wrote that he'd gladly open the
Hi all, I think it would feel "more open" to use the open source
(weaker compression) UPX variants. However, I do not think that it
is imperative that GPL software "must" be compiled with compilers
which are open source themselves. It does help a lot to use at least
free compilers (i.e. not TASM /
