linux-kernel - Re: FatELF patches...

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200911021640.14114.diegocg@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:40:13 +0100
From:	Diego Calleja <diegocg@...il.com>
To:	"Ryan C. Gordon" <icculus@...ulus.org>
Cc:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: FatELF patches...

On Lunes 02 Noviembre 2009 03:21:47 Ryan C. Gordon escribió:
> FatELF solves different problems than package managers, and in the case of 
> ia32 compatibility packages, it helps the package manager solve its 
> problems better.

Package managers can be modified to allow embeddeding a package inside of
another package. That could allow shipping support for multiple architectures
in a single package, and it could even do things that fatelf can't, like
in the case of experimental packages that need other experimental
dependencies: all of them could be packed in a single package, even with
support for multiple architectures. Heck, it could even be a new kind of
container that would allow packing .rpm and .debs for multiple distros
together. And it wouldnt touch a single line of kernel code.

So I don't think that fatelf is solving the problems of package managers,
it's quite the opposite.
--
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/