Hi,
How appropriate is the note attached to port:binutils nowadays?
I installed it recently to test GNU ar in combination with software that tries
to use MRI scripts to generate and modify static libraries. A priori every
command is prefixed and I haven't noticed any problems with other ports ... yet.
If there are known problems with certain components, why not put installation
of those in a variant? /methinks that it can't hurt to have "standard" versions
of utilities like ar...
The port does conflict with port:gdb, something I had already observed in my
Linux adaptations of the two, something I solved in port:gdb with a somewhat
hard-handed
{{{
# we install a certain number of files also installed by port:binutils.
# Avoid existential problems: delete our copy and require binutils so
# everything is complete.
depends_run-append \
port:binutils
post-destroot {
# remove items already installed by port:binutils
file delete -force ${destroot}${prefix}/share/locale
file delete -force ${destroot}${prefix}/share/info/bfd.info
file delete -force ${destroot}${prefix}/lib/libopcodes.la
file delete -force ${destroot}${prefix}/lib/libopcodes.a
file delete -force ${destroot}${prefix}/lib/libbfd.la
file delete -force ${destroot}${prefix}/lib/libbfd.a
file delete -force {*}[glob -directory ${destroot}${prefix}/include/ *.h]
}
}}}
I haven't (yet) checked this on Mac because my experience with gdb (v7) is that
it only works with very simple software and won't detect symbols from libraries
(if they don't have the corresponding .dSYM resource installed maybe). Has that
improved?
R.
