| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 17:44:36 +0000 From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> To: david@...g.hm Cc: "Ryan C. Gordon" <icculus@...ulus.org>, Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: FatELF patches... > how much of the package is binary executables (which get multiplied) vs > how much is data or scripts (which do not) IFF the data is not platform dependant formats. > fo any individual user it will alsays be a larger download, but if you > have to support more than one architecture (even 32 bit vs 64 bit x86) > it may be smaller to have one fat package than to have two 'normal' > packages. Nope. The data files for non arch specific material get packaged accordingly. Have done for years. > > yes, the package manager could handle this by splitting the package up > into more pieces, with some of the pieces being arch independant, but that > also adds complexity. Which was implemented years ago and turns out to be vital because only some data is not arch specific. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists