i think ELF is the way to go for now (once we get these problems sorted out, of
course), but i do find the thought of mach-o/fat binaries on xMach intriquing.
i pulled down the kernel source for darwin last night (xnu) and started checking
out the files dealing with mach-o binaries (after expanding the tarball, you'll
find the headers in "xnu-3-1/libkern/mach-o"). i was also going over the APSL
to see how that would play into everything, assuming that we did eventually
either modify darwin's code or mimic it in some way, and the liscence didn't
seem to be *too* harrowing...here's the part that would pertain to us utilizing
it in xMach:
/*============== snip from Apple Public Source Liscence ==============*/
2.2 You may Deploy Covered Code, provided that You must in each
instance:
(a) satisfy all the conditions of Section 2.1 with respect to the
Source Code of the Covered Code;
(b) make all Your Deployed Modifications publicly available in Source
Code form via electronic distribution (e.g. download from a web site)
under the terms of this License and subject to the license grants set
forth in Section 3 below, and any additional terms You may choose to
offer under Section 6. You must continue to make the Source Code of
Your Deployed Modifications available for as long as you Deploy the
Covered Code or twelve (12) months from the date of initial
Deployment, whichever is longer;
(c) if You Deploy Covered Code containing Modifications made by You,
inform others of how to obtain those Modifications by filling out and
submitting the information found at
http://www.apple.com/publicsource/modifications.html, if available;
and
(d) if You Deploy Covered Code in object code, executable form only,
include a prominent notice, in the code itself as well as in related
documentation, stating that Source Code of the Covered Code is
available under the terms of this License with information on how and
where to obtain such Source Code.
/*============================= end snip =============================*/
...so it doesn't appear to me to be *completely* evil. if i'm wrong and missed
something, and it really *is* evil in terms of the goals the xMach core team
are seeking to achieve, feel free to bean me upside the head the next time you
see me. otherwise, i think mach-o/fat binaries wouldn't be such a shabby idea
in the long run, and i would be happy to help out in any way i can with the
development whenever it comes time.
- ian mondragon
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/25/01 23:55]:
> We are heby requesting proposals on the issue of binary formats for xMach.
> The obvious ones are ELF and a.out. Less obvious would be mach-o for fat
> binary capability, since we eventually want to get this baby on different
> architectures.
> If you have suggestions and comments, please submit them. This is for the
> mid-term, probably post 1.0, but we need to get the discussion going
> already.
>
> JAn
>
>
--
@end
Ian Mondragon - < copal @ dragonhelix . org >
< h t t p : // d r a g o n h e l i x . o r g >
<<< F r e e B S D -- O b j e c t i v e - C >>>
