Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Nov 2009 23:05 UTC
Linux As we all know, Mac OS X has support for what is called 'fat binaries'. These are binaries that can carry code for for instance multiple architectures - in the case of the Mac, PowerPC and x86. Ryan Gordon was working on an implementation of fat binaries for Linux - but due to the conduct of the Linux maintainers, Gordon has halted the effort.
Permalink for comment 393278
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Wouldnt FatELF be optional ?
by vivainio on Fri 6th Nov 2009 20:06 UTC in reply to "Wouldnt FatELF be optional ?"
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

and the people that need multiples, could use FatELF.

What's the problem here ?


In the end people would see that fat binaries are not all that useful (because creating them is a pain, and it's non supported by build/packaging toolchains and bulidbots). And there we are, having complicated the core components (kernel, libc, packaging), with feature nobody uses.

This is classical example of bloat waiting to happen.

This is an idea that looks good on paper, but seems worse and worse when you start looking at the cost of the feature. It gives a warm fuzzy feeling of having that checkbox on the feature list, but not much more.

Reply Parent Score: 2