In message <[email protected] od. outlook.com>, "Edward Sanford Sutton, III" writes: > On 8/26/26 12:11, Cy Schubert wrote: > > The binutils in our ports tree was the last binutils to support the Gold > > linker. A previous exp-run for 2.45.1 showed us that a number of ports > > failures were due to the missing linker. > > > > I've decided to import binutils 2.47 into ports. I think the path forward > > is to address ports failures due do the removed feature. > > > > Do we want to rename the current binutils to binutils244 and import 2.47 as > > binutils? Or would going "cold turkey" be advisable? > Is there a public link for the exp run so we can see how many + what > things break? How linkers work is a particular weakpoint for me so any > examples of identifying and fixing some of the issues already? > It sounds like the difference between 'cold turkey' and creating > binutils244 will both break stuff unless either a default to use 244 for > now is set or broken ports are patched to use it instead of the main > binutils. Any problems with some ports using 2.47 and others using 2.44? > Thank you for this work >
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=297985 -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <[email protected]> FreeBSD UNIX: <[email protected]> Web: https://FreeBSD.org NTP: <[email protected]> Web: https://nwtime.org e**(i*pi)+1=0
