here's a link from freebsd's site:
http://www.pl.freebsd.org/FAQ/FAQ203.html
- ian
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [05/26/01 18:28]:
> We were discussing this in IRC and the response to ELF was basically,
> "whats wrong with a.out?", which is a very reasonable question. What are
> the tradeoffs involved with these binary formats?
>
> Anyone?
>
> JAn
>
> On Sat, 26 May 2001, Ian Mondragon wrote:
>
> > 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 >>>
> >
>
>
--
@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 >>>
