Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 16:06:11 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...) Message-ID: <20020206160611.B181@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200202062046.g16KkPQ17117@aldan.algebra.com>; from mi@aldan.algebra.com on Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:46:22PM -0500 References: <20020207023021.A51865@iclub.nsu.ru> <200202062046.g16KkPQ17117@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:46:22PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > dynamically linked libiberty would be a nightmare. > > > libbfd anf 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! Max told you what a nightmare it would be. He is 110% right. PLEASE take some advice from two people that are experienced in the issues. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020206160611.B181>