From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Tue Aug 10 12:19:10 2010 Message-ID: <4C617B24.60201@atari-source.org> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:15:32 -0400 From: Mark Duckworth User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi Subject: Re: [MiNT] trunk-09082010 file structure / content References: <1281383933.4401.87.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> <1281387993.4401.164.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> <1281389959.4401.204.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> <1281398029.4401.343.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> <1281425999.4401.816.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> <1281438486.4401.1029.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> <1281442675.3015.43.camel@jetpack.demon.co.uk> <4C615968.6070600@atari-source.org> <4C616E79.4080700@freesbee.fr> In-Reply-To: <4C616E79.4080700@freesbee.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: mduckworth@atari-source.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: On 8/10/10 11:21 AM, Vincent Rivière wrote: > Mark Duckworth wrote: >> I enjoy the concept of "fat" binaries. > > I probably hate it as much. > > Personally, as a user, I want the optimal binaries for my computer, > and nothing more or less. > > Well, that's only my opinion. > But that means what is executed IS optimal. Take for instance coldfire. A user can run a program on his system that will use 680x0 emulation if it is not a coldfire binary. A fat binary will work properly and efficiently on either system and only cost some disk space. Thanks, Mark