Subject: Re: Modifications of standard headers for PECOFF
To: TAMURA Kent <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/23/2002 16:06:44
On Fri, 24 May 2002, TAMURA Kent wrote:
> In message "Re: Modifications of standard headers for PECOFF"
> on 02/05/24, Bang Jun-Young <email@example.com> writes:
> > BTW, what advantages can we get by having support for PE/COFF in
> > the base system, compared to leaving it as separate package like
> > PEACE?
> We have a plan to implement some kernel32.dll functions in
> compat_pecoff. It should be more efficient than server approach
> like Wine.
I don't think that answered his question. I think the question is why
should NetBSD's userland includes be modified for PEACE?