Return-Path: Subject: RE: [Bluez-devel] Alignment issue From: David Woodhouse To: Marcel Holtmann Cc: Daryl Van Vorst , "'BlueZ Mailing List'" In-Reply-To: <1092308407.28711.99.camel@pegasus> References: <001201c47fc2$7093e4a0$1301010a@baked> <1092252699.4564.238.camel@pegasus> <1092299689.4622.8.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> <1092302834.28711.72.camel@pegasus> <1092304890.15466.44.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <1092306154.28711.85.camel@pegasus> <1092306935.15466.74.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <1092308407.28711.99.camel@pegasus> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1092310391.15466.178.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:33:11 +0100 List-ID: On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 13:00 +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: > I am not familiar with PIE. Is it correct that it stands for "position > independent executables"? Indeed -- and that's about as much as I know too, I'm afraid. It's to allow random load addresses, to reduce the chance of successful buffer overflow attacks -- if the executable is loaded at a random address, you don't have known functions at known addresses which the shellcode can call. I think. > Do you have a link to the source and binary RPM's for me? http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/development/i386/SRPMS/ http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/development/i386/Fedora/RPMS/ > Looks fine so far. I hope you checked the new --enable commands in > bluez-utils-2.9, because I made many stuff optional. Briefly. I think I enabled everything, and made a note to look closer at the firmware stuff. > The bluez-bluefw is deprecated. Please use bluez-firmware instead and > enable bcm203x program in bluez-utils if you need it (for 2.4 kernels > only). Splitting up a bluez-utils-bcm203x could be useful. I looked very briefly at that -- does it also support loading firmware in the PCMCIA cards? Is this the future instead of request_firmware()? Why so? > Actually even Debian and SuSE ship other init scripts and that is fine > for me. Do you think a --disable-initscripts option would make the life > of the package maintainers easier? I don't think it makes a lot of difference, to be honest -- although if so many distributions are shipping separate initscripts perhaps we should collaborate a bit more closely? > > /me shudders. Autocrap considered harmful. You break cross-compilation > > if you try to do that. I'd much prefer just to write portable code. > > You are right. I forgot to think about cross-compilation. Users of autoconf often do -- when porting the distro to embedded machines and trying to cross-build it, autoconf was the single largest problem I encountered. -- dwmw2