Fedora with Universal Binaries?

[Jon Ciesla]

King InuYasha wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler at chello.at 
> <mailto:kevin.kofler at chello.at>> wrote:
>
>     King InuYasha wrote:
>     > I just saw this article about an effort to create Universal
>     binary style
>     > ELF binaries for Linux, and I thought that this would be
>     something to
>     > watch, so that Fedora could integrate both x86-32 and x86-64
>     into single
>     > DVD sets.
>     >
>     > http://icculus.org/fatelf/
>
>     Yuck!!! Please don't infect GNU/Linux with this completely
>     braindead crap!
>     This wastes a lot of disk space and download bandwidth and
>     probably also
>     increases loading times for NO reason whatsoever. It also doubles
>     the build
>     times for any and all software. Just figure out what arch your
>     machine is
>     and install the correct package for your arch! Fat binaries are a
>     method to
>     make crappy binary-only software distribution easier, they have no
>     room on a
>     Free Software system. Let the Mac folks keep their fat crap and
>     leave our
>     binaries as native for the appropriate arch!
>
>            Kevin Kofler
>
>     --
>     fedora-devel-list mailing list
>     fedora-devel-list at redhat.com <mailto:fedora-devel-list at redhat.com>
>     https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
>
>
> I dunno, it could be useful for Live CDs/USBs. It would let you pack 
> multiple arches onto a single LiveCD/USB.
>
Yeah, but they'd be larger, forcing removal of software from the images.
> You sound like one of those crazy people that disregard everything 
> that may slightly help proprietary software. It's probably possible to 
> strip out arches when they become unneeded, if so desired. I know it 
> is possible under Mac OS X to do that. If you had a system that had 
> extra arches you didn't need, you probably could just go and strip 
> them out to save disk space.
>
So. . .then why do it?  There are practical considerations here.
> There isn't much proof to your statement about loading fat binaries. I 
> don't notice a slow down in load times of Universal binaries on my 
> Mac, but I do notice the disk space. As it is, Snow Leopard now uses 
> Universal binaries to pack x86_32 and x86_64 into a single application 
> container and can strip out PowerPC binary code.
>
> Don't knock it till you try it...
Strip out where?  Build time, install time, or run time?

-- 
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie