On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 07:53:42PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> On  6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:46:22PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> >> > dynamically linked libiberty would be a nightmare.
> >> 
> >> > libbfd  and  libiberty  do  not   have  version  numbers,  are  not
> >> > maintained  (i.e. there  is  no official  releases). every  project
> >> > includes its own libiberty and imho an attempt to find least common
> >> > denominator will fail
> >> 
> >> Well, they come to FreeBSD as part of the binutils, right?
> > 
> > NO!
> Is that a "NO!" as in "no, it does not come as part of the binutils", or

Yes it comes as part of binutils.


No we should not go down this path.  You've already been told that there
is no official libiberty or bfd release.  Every software package that
needs either comes with its own copy -- that always has bug fixes or
minor changes from all the other copies out there.

> I'd like to take any advice, but  it has to be founded. Plenty of pieces
> of the FreeBSD project are "a  nightmare" -- including the binutils,

Why is binutils a nightmare??  I don't find it to be one.

> I'm  trying to  persuade the  audience, that  installing the  libbfd and
> libiberty  (which we  build anyway!)  into  /usr/lib is  also worth  the
> trouble, because it will help add  new software through the ports system
> -- like the  gcj-compiler, or different versions of GCC,  etc. (With all
> available targets enabled, preferably.)

HOW will it help to add software?  What is so wrong with compiling the
bundled libiberty or bfd that comes with each of the "new software" when
building them?  What is so wrong with having libiberty or bfd statically
linked into the "new software"?

I frankly just don't see what "problem" it is you are trying to solve.

> I mean, I can add arm-aout or arm-elf binutils to the system through the
> devel ports,  or mingw --  all with their own  libbfd, but I  don't have
> access to  the native version,  which is built as  part of the  base OS,
> just never installed? Is not this a bit ridiculous?

Why is it ridiculous?  Personally I don't think a cross-toolchain build
should be installing those bits.  But the GNU developers did not ask me
for my opinion.
>       -mi
> P.S. NetBSD installs shared libbfd:

Of the two -- bfd and libiberty, bfd is the one we would have the most
success at installing as a shared lib in /usr/lib.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to