https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884
--- Comment #55 from Andy Mender <[email protected]> --- > Okay, looking into this more (also see comment 11, comment 12, comment 13, > comment 14), the biggest issue I see is that it should be marked as bundled > with gdb and binutils, not gcc. I don't think there's actually a bundled > gnulib in gcc. That's probably why I was confused above. Assuming the > ChangeLog is correct, I will version it with a date as done in system gdb[0]. I checked the regular gcc package and yes, it's not there: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gcc/blob/master/f/gcc.spec It's bundled with gdb, however: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gdb/blob/master/f/gdb.spec#_105 > I'm not sure I understand. In comment 23, comment 24, comment 25, and comment > 35 it was decided to move everything to the /usr/msp430-elf prefix and > symlink prefixed binaries as described in the packaging guidelines[1]. Why > are we now moving things back to unprefixed system %{_libdir}? These > unprefixed binaries should never come into contact with any non-msp430 > compiler, and as far as I can tell getting rid of them breaks compatibility > with how "upsteam" (TI, so, more midstream...) intends the compiler to work, > which as far as I'm concerned would make this package a little pointless. Yes, you're right. Apologies for my previous comment. I confused myself. The way it is right now makes more sense, of course. Let's keep that part as it is now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
