From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <459DF84B.3010405@anvil.com> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 18:03:39 +1100 From: Dave Lukes User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061206) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] python References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Topicbox-Message-UUID: fd1d3f3a-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 There may be the germ of an insane but possibly usable idea here ... What we need is a facility by which a program can glue together a bunch=20 of object files when it's run ... Now ?l can already do the gluing, so why not replace any program that requires dynamic libraries with an=20 rc script that links together all the required object files together on the fly=20 into a temporary file, then executes the resultant file then removes it. Yes, it's psychotic, but so are shared libs. Of course, if you want to link at run-time rather than execute-time, you're out of luck, but, pedantically, it will do most of what linux=20 does with .so files with no changes lower down. DaveL (who's on holiday in Sydney and thinks that the next plan9 conference=20 definitely ought to be here). erik quanstrom wrote: > perhaps my assembly-language addled brain is just rebelling, but my sna= rky reaction > to this python thread is this: > > eh, while you're at it, why not just run the whole dynamicly-bound > bit in a 386-emulator. that way, when movietunes3000 really wants som= e > bit of linux, you can just run it in the emulator. > > or, Just Run Linux=E2=84=A2. > > my slightly more thoughtful reaction is, why does the operating system = need to control > the late-linking process? (python doesn't really need .so shared libra= ries per se, does it?) > to me this seems more like a linker problem than anything else. why no= t write your own? > you could write an rc script to gather the bits and waah laa. ... ooh, = ron. i just invented > linker scripts. ;-) > > - erik > =20