Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:04:36 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@freebsd.org>, Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net>, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com>, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>, arch@freebsd.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: XML Output: libxo - provide single API to output TXT, XML, JSON and HTML Message-ID: <16CE0543-0616-415D-9E68-EEB053DE4254@xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <20140814052648.GM2737@kib.kiev.ua> References: <201408131936.s7DJaA1r089174@idle.juniper.net> <20140814052648.GM2737@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Apple-Mail=_3EF02EE7-3339-4832-ACFA-93F4CF617EF9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Aug 13, 2014, at 10:26 PM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> = wrote: >>=20 >> I know ELF "Note" elements can be used to carry vendor-specific >> data, but have no experience with them. Would it be reasonable to >> use them as a means of communicating this information to other bits >> of software? > No. Too extreme. >> Is FreeBSD using Notes for other information currently? > Yes, the notes are used to communicate the information required by > the dynamic linker to correctly activate the image. The mechanism has > nothing to do with application-specific features, and overloading it = for > that purpose is severe and pointless layering violation. Things should > not be done just because they could be done. Too extreme. Life is a lot more subtle. Standards are as well. There are many examples in the real world where standards are interpreted a little more liberal than others may want to. When such result in (gratuitous) incompatibilities, we all interpret it as bad. But when it adds real value, you tend to find it in the next update of the standard. > Using the static tagging for the dynamic application properties is = wrong > anyway. E.g., would you consider the mere fact that the binary is = linked > against your library, as the indication that your feature is supported = ? > If not, how does it differ from the presence of some additional note ? If we can eliminate static linking for libxo, than that is definitely easy. Easiest probably. The question becomes: is it acceptable to not support static linking for libxo? Or alternatively, is it acceptable to not be able to check for the feature on a static executable? For the first I'm inclined to say yes, but not for the second. --=20 Marcel Moolenaar marcel@xcllnt.net --Apple-Mail=_3EF02EE7-3339-4832-ACFA-93F4CF617EF9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAlPs7CQACgkQpgWlLWHuifYLbwCeLctj2ViFfNYa5pLIvwmgpqeE B4IAnAvxZQ3XPTT7KGd++1ID+MPv21ko =LXa8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_3EF02EE7-3339-4832-ACFA-93F4CF617EF9--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16CE0543-0616-415D-9E68-EEB053DE4254>