Sender | Message | Time |
---|---|---|
29 Apr 2025 | ||
I know, I've had this issue before and that's also the reason I was using dotnet_9.sdk. Because I had read this | 18:52:04 | |
yeah because dotnet_9.sdk will get the source built sdk | 18:52:26 | |
while sdk_9_0 currently aliases to the binary one | 18:52:36 | |
yeah ironically binary builds needs an additional hack | 18:52:59 | |
. | 18:53:14 | |
Would it theoretically be possible to install the workloads using nix? | 18:57:19 | |
yeah | 18:58:07 | |
just no one implemented that | 18:58:10 | |
In reply to @6pak:matrix.orgOh huh, i should switch then, i thought both were source built | 20:09:28 | |
It's a bit more complicated than that. The runtime is always source built unless you use -bin, and the sdk will be source built if you use -source, or if you use the 1xx feature level ask, since it can be built from source | 20:53:53 | |
* It's a bit more complicated than that. The runtime is always source built unless you use -bin, and the sdk will be source built if you use -source, or if you use the 1xx feature level sdk, since it can be built from source | 20:54:09 | |
(tldr the sdk is currently binary :)) | 20:54:30 | |
* (tldr the sdk_9_0 is currently binary :)) | 20:54:41 | |
Yeah, but the sdk includes the runtime, so if you care about running on the source built runtime it might matter | 20:57:31 | |
In reply to @6pak:matrix.org With this workaround I can install the workloads, but they are still ignored by | 21:17:06 | |
In reply to @ortolanbunting3002:tchncs.de Ah, how do I use them then? | 21:20:03 | |
1 May 2025 | ||
20:08:19 | ||
3 May 2025 | ||
It seems that
| 03:12:55 | |
Similar issue if I do "'mbundle extractor/mbundle extractor.csproj'" Switch: 'mbundle | 03:13:22 | |
Used repo is https://github.com/darkxex/Rune-Factory-4-Special-Mbundle-Extractor | 03:14:45 | |
✨️ bash ✨️ | 03:16:14 | |
5 May 2025 | ||
well, I don't know how reliable it is, but it seems like the only way to figure out whether an ELF is an apphost or not is grep 'You must install .NET to run this application.' | 14:11:12 | |
I don't know if anyone else has a better method to do it | 14:11:21 | |
* I don't know if anyone else has a better (or more reliable?) method to do it | 14:12:12 | |
6 May 2025 | ||
Just a 5min guess: Could the output of binwalk help here?
I did not investigate what's stored at that offset or if it even is at the same offset but this seems like it might be a bit more reliable... | 06:12:20 | |
(I tried it on an already patched version because I did not have anything else lying around, so it might also be a red herring) | 06:13:16 | |
hm, I'll check | 13:44:27 | |
is the hex the offset? | 13:44:34 | |
this might be an option. it gets replaced with the dll name, but there's a separate copy of it in two parts that stays in the executable for comparison | 13:45:06 | |
*
this might be an option. it gets replaced with the dll name, but there's a separate copy of it in two parts that stays in the executable for comparison it's also in singlefilehost | 13:45:23 |