From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 10 18:15:35 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4563B16A572; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:15:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D258743D48; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:15:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.254.12] (g4.samsco.home [192.168.254.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j0AIIv3O040673; Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:18:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <41E2C641.40101@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 11:15:29 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Rhodes References: <20050110103332.7dbc2f72@mobile.pittgoth.com> <20050110180649.GA45481@ip.net.ua> <20050110131111.6446bd24@mobile.pittgoth.com> In-Reply-To: <20050110131111.6446bd24@mobile.pittgoth.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removing rtld-aout X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:15:35 -0000 Tom Rhodes wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 20:06:49 +0200 > Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > >>On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:33:32AM -0500, Tom Rhodes wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>Would anyone care if I removed rtld-aout in CURRENT and eventually >>>in RELENG_5? It was unhooked over two years ago during the removal >>>of a.out support by peter. Reviewing the Makefile, it doesn't seem >>>to be built for any architecture. Patch URL is listed below but it >>>review shouldn't be needed. >>> >>>Comments? Yes/no/Tom go away? >>> >> >>Rumours were to make it (and a bunch of other a.out remnants) a >>port first, then remove. > > > Yep, I recall. And we see how that happened eh? :) > > Note to whoever makes it a port: this is broken > I thought that we still supported running aout binaries in 5.x and 6.x, but we didn't support compiling them anymore (except possibly via a certain gcc port). How does rtld-aout fit into this? Does this mean that we can only run static aout binaries now? Scott