On 8/10/10 1:33 PM, m0n0 wrote:
Am Di, 10.08.2010, 18:15 schrieb Mark Duckworth:A fat binary will work properly and efficiently on either system and only cost some disk space.Small binaries are charming somehow... and it gives you the possibility to make something like cripple mint distribution (1 floppy-disk MiNT distribution). But as I said - this "fat" kernel sources could be coded with #ifdefs and so you could just leave out the things that you don't want to have in the kernel. So, if someone want's an fat kernel, he/she is able to build one..., but if he likes to build an small kernel, he or she is also able to do it, by setting / unsetting the kernel-configuration compiler defines.
True,My thought was more tailored at defining a new binary format (while still supporting the old one). If you download Eureka for instance there are 5 different binaries for whether or not you have 030/fpu or combinations thereof. It would be nice to just roll all of these into a binary and have it autodetect. More, it would be nice to improve the fpu support to simply use hardware if available, otherwise use soft. I'm dreaming a bit but that's my thought. Noah Silva, if you remember him, came up with a binary format that has support for multiple binaries inside of it as well as application icon, rsc, etc more similar to mac.
Perhaps simpler is the current MacOS method of having a folder that on the desktop appears as an application but inside the folder is numerous versions and the desktop decides which binary to run based on saved preferences.
There's a million ways to go about it. I've been meaning to experiment with them if I ever have free time again in my life.
Thanks, Mark