On Fri, 24 May 2002, TAMURA Kent wrote:

>
> In message "Re: Modifications of standard headers for PECOFF"
>     on 02/05/24, Bang Jun-Young <junyoung@mogua.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?

Take care,

Bill