Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:09:04 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...) Message-ID: <20020206170904.C181@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200202070053.g170rjQ19592@aldan.algebra.com>; from mi@aldan.algebra.com on Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 07:53:42PM -0500 References: <20020206160611.B181@dragon.nuxi.com> <200202070053.g170rjQ19592@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 07:53:42PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:46:22PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > >> > dynamically linked libiberty would be a nightmare. > >> > >> > libbfd and 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! > > Is that a "NO!" as in "no, it does not come as part of the binutils", or Yes it comes as part of binutils. > is that a "NO!" as in "I'M NOT GOING TO AGREE WITH ANYTHING YOU SAY?" No we should not go down this path. You've already been told that there is no official libiberty or bfd release. Every software package that needs either comes with its own copy -- that always has bug fixes or minor changes from all the other copies out there. > I'd like to take any advice, but it has to be founded. Plenty of pieces > of the FreeBSD project are "a nightmare" -- including the binutils, Why is binutils a nightmare?? I don't find it to be one. > I'm trying to persuade the audience, that installing the libbfd and > libiberty (which we build anyway!) into /usr/lib is also worth the > trouble, because it will help add new software through the ports system > -- like the gcj-compiler, or different versions of GCC, etc. (With all > available targets enabled, preferably.) HOW will it help to add software? What is so wrong with compiling the bundled libiberty or bfd that comes with each of the "new software" when building them? What is so wrong with having libiberty or bfd statically linked into the "new software"? I frankly just don't see what "problem" it is you are trying to solve. > I mean, I can add arm-aout or arm-elf binutils to the system through the > devel ports, or mingw -- all with their own libbfd, but I don't have > access to the native version, which is built as part of the base OS, > just never installed? Is not this a bit ridiculous? Why is it ridiculous? Personally I don't think a cross-toolchain build should be installing those bits. But the GNU developers did not ask me for my opinion. > -mi > > P.S. NetBSD installs shared libbfd: > http://wuarchive.wustl.edu/systems/unix/NetBSD/NetBSD-release-1-5/src/gnu/lib/libbfd/ Of the two -- bfd and libiberty, bfd is the one we would have the most success at installing as a shared lib in /usr/lib. -- -- 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?20020206170904.C181>