[patch] extending/completing brandelf's OS knowledge
Alexander at Leidinger.net
Mon Jan 25 09:01:39 UTC 2010
Quoting Doug Barton <dougb at FreeBSD.org> (from Sun, 24 Jan 2010
21:29:42 -0800 (PST)):
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Kostik Belousov wrote:
>> I do not see a need for such rudimentary ELF editor in the base at all.
> So, perhaps it's time to move brandelf out of the base? And if so,
> perhaps Alexander's contribution could be incorporated into a port
> for it?
Personally I do not see a reason why his work can not go into the base
system. From a feature point of view the patch is giving brandelf a
little bit more freedom what it is allowed to change. When I look at
what I do/did with various tools in FreeBSD which where not intended
to be used like this but where useful in some cases, I do not think we
should enforce the policy to allow only stuff in brandelf which we are
able to emulate.
>> After the work of dchagin@/bz@, brandelf is needed only for the corner
>> cases, if at all.
> Hmm, I was fooling around with some linux'y stuff the other day and
> needed to brandelf it (don't remember what, obviously wasn't that
> important). :)
> If this happens again in the future, is it worth reporting
> somewhere? (-emulation@ ?)
If it was to brandelf a static linux executable so that the FreeBSD
system does not reboot when executing the static linux executable,
then I would say it does not need to be reported and we still need
brandelf in the base system.
If someone says that exactly this case has been fixed recently: it
would be great to hear on emulation@ about cases where brandelf is
Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #217:
You can't free a fish from water.
-- ST:DS9, "Past Tense, Part I"
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
More information about the freebsd-hackers