Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 11:15:34 +1200 From: Joe Abley <jabley@clear.co.nz> To: W Gerald Hicks <wghicks@bellsouth.net> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net>, Warner Losh <imp@harmony.village.org>, John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, wghicks@wghicks.bellsouth.net, jabley@clear.co.nz Subject: Re: Adding desktop support (please don't) Message-ID: <19990429111534.B81921@clear.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <199904281823.OAA93307@bellsouth.net>; from W Gerald Hicks on Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 02:23:46PM -0400 References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990428131758.10204W-100000@cygnus.rush.net> <199904281823.OAA93307@bellsouth.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 02:23:46PM -0400, W Gerald Hicks wrote: > A resource fork can be useful to help application developers targeting > multiple OS's. Each OS seems to have its own special rules about where > supplemental static data should be stored. While we're busy re-inventing the Mac :) how about the concept of fat binaries? Is there any reason why we couldn't support ELF binaries with multiple pageable executables embedded in it, so that a single distributed binary could support multiple architectures? You could always strip the binaries down to a single architecture if you were short of space... Joe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990429111534.B81921>