Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:35:01 -0700 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: binutils Message-ID: <D2255331-624F-4088-94C4-2E988E8DF925@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20091010123423.0b64769f@scorpio.seibercom.net> References: <permail-200910101345391e86ffa800007f68-a_best01@message-id.uni-muenster.de> <20091010103623.11ed0154@scorpio.seibercom.net> <44hbu7mhao.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <20091010123423.0b64769f@scorpio.seibercom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 10, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Jerry wrote: > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:53:35 -0400 > Lowell Gilbert (freebsd-questions-local@be-well.ilk.org) replied: >> Unfortunately, it's under an unacceptable license. > > I was not aware of that. What is the problem? Somewhere around binutils-2.17, it switched to using GPLv3. > Perhaps, if it is not all > ready available, the FreeBSD developers can devise some directive to > place in the '/etc/make.conf' file that would force the use of the > 'port' version instead if it was available in a fashion similar to > what > is done with OpenSSL; i.e. "WITH_OPENSSL_PORT=yes". Perhaps, > "WITH_BINUTILS_PORT=yes". That's not a bad idea, although you can likely export PREFIX=/usr and install the binutils port, and get the desired result. Regards, -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D2255331-624F-4088-94C4-2E988E8DF925>