Well, possibly the only thing fatELF would be needed for would be to rid ourselves of multilib. Applications don't even need to be FatELF to link to FatELF libraries.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Ikem Krueger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ikem.krueger@googlemail.com">ikem.krueger@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">> I just saw this article about an effort to create Universal binary style ELF<br>
> binaries for Linux, and I thought that this would be something to watch, so<br>
> that Fedora could integrate both x86-32 and x86-64 into single DVD sets.<br>
</div>I don't suggest to do that. As already mentioned, that would double<br>
the size of the distro/iso. I would use this technic only, if<br>
neccessary.<br>
<br>
About "fat-elf" in general: As long as it is optional, I am fine with<br>
it. May it at compile time or after compiling by stripping binaries.<br>
(I'd like to see both options.)<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
--<br>
fedora-devel-list mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:fedora-devel-list@redhat.com">fedora-devel-list@redhat.com</a><br>
<a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list" target="_blank">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>