On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 05:31:30AM -0400, Matthew N. Dodd wrote: > A few things before we have the SAME thread that the NetBSD folks had a > few months ago. > > 1. Storing the prebinding information in libraries/executables, while > highly desirable, is not practical at this time. You previously said that it would not work. Now it's just impractical. Also, it suddenly is highly desirable, while previously it was not even an option (because it wouldn't work). Is this your final position on the matter? > 2. The BUILDID information (time() + random()) and filename is sufficient > to reduce the chance of a collision to nil. It's highly flawed. Use UUIDs. They are less flawed. > If you'd like to argue with me about these statements I'll entertain those > discussions off the list. For now, lets just accept them as given. No deal. Demonstrate proficiency and I might give you the benefit of the doubt. > What is relevent is the transformation function I use on the BUILDID and > filename may result in collisions; I'm open to suggestions on this one. Do not transform. Use the UUID in the executable as the name of the cache file or put the prebind information in the executable itself. The latter is highly desirable (as you say) and the impracticality of the approach so far seems to be based on time and joy and not on technicalities. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel_at_xcllnt.netReceived on Mon May 26 2003 - 11:56:54 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:09 UTC