On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 08:38:02PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> On  6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
> > Yes it comes as part of binutils.
> Ok.
> > No we  should not  go down  this path. You've  already been  told that
> > there is no official libiberty or bfd release.
> Well, the following URL
>       http://www.gnu.org/manual/bfd-2.9.1/
> for example, seems  to imply, that there  was, in fact, at  some point a
> release 2.9.1 of bfd... It does not  quite match the bfd,

No, that document describes the BFD that was included with Binutils
2.9.1.  If you looked at another tree of documents you would also think
that bfd was at version 5.1.1 (ie, the latest GDB).

What part about two of us telling you that there are no released versions
(ie, of bfd or libiberty as a unique, separate package) aren't you
believing?  I know the GNU toolchain, its development, release cycle, and
packaging VERY well.

> > 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.
> Well,  that would  be a  porter's job  to figure  out which  changes the
> package relies on,  or which it simply  did not bother to  sync with the
> bfd, that comes with binutils. 

WHY do you want to cause this problem of non-matching bits?
This is my last email you on this topic, as you've yet to answer the
question of what problem you are trying to solve!

> Plenty  of packages come bundled with the
> third-party software, and a good port  makes them build with the already
> installed versions  of such  software (like zlib,  OpenSSL) or  with the
> version available from another port (like c-client).

Well the GNU bits do not do that.  If you report a GDB but and they find
out you weren't using the BFD or Libiberty included with GDB, the bug
report would probably be dropped on the floor.  The testing cycles that
Binutils and GDB goes thru, uses the version that was branched with that
piece of software.  Go run diffs over these packages from Binutlis 2.11.2
and GDB 5.1.1 and see the differences.  Now go diff those libiberty's
with the one in GCC 2.95.3.

> > Why is binutils a nightmare?? I don't find it to be one.
> You edited out  the rest from my  list of examples. Ok. You  did want to
> drop Alpha, because  supporting the compiler on it  seemed too difficult
> at  some point  -- how  is that  for  an example?  Or do  you claim  the
> proposed addition is the most nightmarish of them all?

No I want to drop Alpha because no one cares about it and not just the
compiler, but much more often kernel, WARNS, and other changes break the

> > 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"?
> It is _inelegant_  and is inconsistent with our use  of shared libraries
> for most of the rest of the system. Look, we wanted ssh and we added it.

Oh crist!  Go find a REAL problem to solve than something that you don't
like the esthetics of.

> > I frankly just don't see what "problem" it is you are trying to solve.
> I  want libbfd  (and  libiberty) to  be  installed as  part  of the  OS.
> Preferably -- in both, static  and dynamic fashions, consistent with the
> rest of the libraries.

That is NOT a problem.  That is just some mis-founded goal with no basis
of purpose.

> Because FreeBSD's  base source  already includes  the libbfd  source and
> builds the library  during build. It just does not  install it, for some
> reason. If all targets are enabled, this cross-toolchain ports would not
> even need their own versions of this libraries, most likely...

FEH!!  You are going to patch the nightmare (yes I will use that term to
describe this) autoconf and autoMake bits that come with the GNU tools?
Good luck!  In general with GNU tools, JUST LEAVE THINGS THE WAY THE


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

Reply via email to