On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 18:38 +, Antti Kantee wrote:
> On 08/09/15 16:15, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 15:03 +, Antti Kantee wrote:
> >
> > > For unikernels, the rump kernel project provides Rumprun, which can
> > > provide you with a near-full POSIX'y interface.
> >
> >
Ian,
Thank you for the explanations.
Hmm. (not replying to anything specific)
My guess is that shared libs won't be the biggest problem. I'd find it
extremely surprising if you can take a Linux (or any other !NetBSD)
packaging system and discover the dozens of dependencies of QEMU to not
On 08/09/15 16:15, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 15:03 +, Antti Kantee wrote:
For unikernels, the rump kernel project provides Rumprun, which can
provide you with a near-full POSIX'y interface.
I'm not 100% clear: Does rumprun _build_ or _run_ the application? It sound
s like
On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 18:26 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Ian Campbell, le Tue 08 Sep 2015 17:15:40 +0100, a écrit :
> > Is it at all possible (even theoretically) to take a shared library
> > (which
> > is relocatable as required) and to do a compile time static linking
> > pass on
> > it? i.e.
Ian Campbell, le Tue 08 Sep 2015 17:15:40 +0100, a écrit :
> Is it at all possible (even theoretically) to take a shared library (which
> is relocatable as required) and to do a compile time static linking pass on
> it? i.e. use libfoo.so but still do static linking?
€ gcc test.c -o libtest.so
Hi,
Wei Liu hinted that I should "chime in and / or provide corrections"
(his words). I'll attempt to do exactly that by not really replying to
anything specific. For the record, when I say "we" in this mail, I mean
"people who have contributed to the rump kernel project" (as also
Ian Campbell, le Tue 08 Sep 2015 17:37:21 +0100, a écrit :
> On Tue, 2015-09-08 at 18:26 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Ian Campbell, le Tue 08 Sep 2015 17:15:40 +0100, a écrit :
> > > Is it at all possible (even theoretically) to take a shared library
> > > (which
> > > is relocatable as
