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.
Thread beginning with comment 393229
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: bah
by i92guboj on Fri 6th Nov 2009 12:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: bah"
i92guboj
Member since:
2009-07-16

Keep that argument hammering on...

The packaging has still to be done, it doesn't matter if it's done in 5 separate packages or in a single FatELF, what's your point there?

If the packages doesn't package it, then it's not packaged, the format is irrelevant. It's not like FatELF is a robot that compiles for 20 architectures and then packages for you.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: bah
by segedunum on Fri 6th Nov 2009 13:36 in reply to "RE[4]: bah"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The packaging has still to be done, it doesn't matter if it's done in 5 separate packages or in a single FatELF, what's your point there?

5 versus 1. Hmmmmmmmm. I wonder. How many installer packages do you normally see from a software vendor for any given platform? One or a maximum of two.

If the packages doesn't package it, then it's not packaged, the format is irrelevant. It's not like FatELF is a robot that compiles for 20 architectures...

Compiling is not the cost. Deployment is. Maintaining separate packages is a very large cost but that doesn't seem to stop the nutcases from still believing that it actually works.

Reply Parent Score: 4