* Jessica Clarke: > > *sigh* What is the plan for building binutils on real FreeBSD? Because > > that has a libctf (albeit, now at .2) in the base system that will > > conflict. Is this just a GNU-written replacement we should disable in > > binutils on kfreebsd-*? Presumably that’s what they do on FreeBSD… > > Regardless, this is binutils’s bug, it can’t just hijack libraries, > especially those that are OS-provided system libraries like libctf.
* Andreas Beckmann <a...@debian.org>: > Control: affects -1 + src:ctfutils > > On 07/12/2021 16.35, Jessica Clarke wrote: > > Control: reassign -1 binutils > > Control: retitle -1 binutils: Hijacks libctf library name on (k)FreeBSD > > I found the two libctf.so.0 on amd64, no kFreeBSD involved. > I'd expect that they exist on all architectures ... I looked at the situation in FreeBSD yesterday, and binutils in ports is updated to current versions. The ports definition did not tell me, if libctf from binutils gets installed or not - but I do not claim to understand the ports definition format either. On Debian release archs this all seems to have little effect. Should this bug really continue to be assigned to binutils, and if so, be severity: serious? Chris
