Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 11:16:14 -0400 From: Phil Shafer <phil@juniper.net> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, marcel@freebsd.org, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com>, "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> Subject: Re: XML Output: libxo - provide single API to output TXT, XML, JSON and HTML Message-ID: <201408141516.s7EFGE4a096197@idle.juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <20140814085257.GN2737@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Konstantin Belousov writes: >How binary format has any relevance for an application level feature ? >What would you do with the binaries which permissions are 'r-s--x--x', >which is not unexpected for the tools which gather system information >and have to access things like /dev/mem ? This would clearly not make sense. Some meta-data should be in the file and some in the filesystem. Implementing the SF_SNAPSHOT file as a note section would be silly. But that doesn't imply that using a note section to facilitate proper construction of the environment for running a binary isn't reasonable. >You removed and did not answered a crusial question, which is a litmus >test for your proposal. Namely, how presence of the proposed note in >the binary is different from DT_NEEDED tag for your library ? Apologies; here is your original question: >>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 ? No, I'm not looking for something more explicit than a reference to a function in a library. I'm looking for an explicit marker that a binary supports working in a particular environment. That marker could be applied by having the developer link against a specific marking library, or by having a tool make the binary appropriately. But it should be something explicit. Re: DT_NEEDED: this section holds symbols for dynamic linking. It's content and meaning are explicitly given in the spec. The note section is intended for other generic information. It seems a reasonable place to put the answer to the question "can this binary make additional styles of output and how do I trigger that behavior?". >Definitely, I do not see an addition of the fashion-of-the-day >text-mangling output shattering enough to justify imposing the >architecture violation. It's partially opinion and perspective, but I don't see an architecture violation; I see the use of a generic mechanism to carry relevant information. And I see this addition as a modernization that allows better integration with fashionable tools like browsers and client/server architectures. Thanks, Phil
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201408141516.s7EFGE4a096197>