On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 02:20:16 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> This isn't all bad. Consider: we could add the ability to load
> PE executables and shared libraries into this private ld-linux.so.
I think that would be a very bad idea, frankly. The real glibc rtld is
huge. We do *not* want to maintain a dy
Mike Hearn wrote:
It seems it's turned from being an normal (albiet static) app which
reserves the areas needed then boots wine, into a reimplementation of
ld-linux.so?
This isn't all bad. Consider: we could add the ability to load
PE executables and shared libraries into this private ld-linux.so
Hi Mike,
Mike Hearn wrote:
It seems it's turned from being an normal (albiet static) app which
reserves the areas needed then boots wine, into a reimplementation of
ld-linux.so? I'm not sure it's a good plan to alter the .interp field -
that has to be absolute and this technique would break binar
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 22:00:09 +0900, Mike McCormack wrote:
> All comments and flames accepted... /me wears his asbestos suit.
It seems it's turned from being an normal (albiet static) app which
reserves the areas needed then boots wine, into a reimplementation of
ld-linux.so? I'm not sure it's a go
Hi,
This patch works around the exec-shield problems with Fedora Core. I'd
be greatful if any people using Fedora core could test it out and see
how it works.
It should be enough to apply it to the latest CVS tip and recompile.
All comments and flames accepted... /me wears his asbestos suit.
