Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:22:38 -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: <20020206192238.B3347@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200202070138.g171c5Q20152@aldan.algebra.com>; from mi@aldan.algebra.com on Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 08:38:02PM -0500 References: <20020206170904.C181@dragon.nuxi.com> <200202070138.g171c5Q20152@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 08:38:02PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote: > > Yes it comes as part of binutils. > > Ok. > > > No we should not go down this path. You've already been told that > > there is no official libiberty or bfd release. > > Well, the following URL > > http://www.gnu.org/manual/bfd-2.9.1/ > > for example, seems to imply, that there was, in fact, at some point a > release 2.9.1 of bfd... It does not quite match the bfd, No, that document describes the BFD that was included with Binutils 2.9.1. If you looked at another tree of documents you would also think that bfd was at version 5.1.1 (ie, the latest GDB). What part about two of us telling you that there are no released versions (ie, of bfd or libiberty as a unique, separate package) aren't you believing? I know the GNU toolchain, its development, release cycle, and packaging VERY well. > > 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. > > Well, that would be a porter's job to figure out which changes the > package relies on, or which it simply did not bother to sync with the > bfd, that comes with binutils. WHY do you want to cause this problem of non-matching bits? This is my last email you on this topic, as you've yet to answer the question of what problem you are trying to solve! > Plenty of packages come bundled with the > third-party software, and a good port makes them build with the already > installed versions of such software (like zlib, OpenSSL) or with the > version available from another port (like c-client). Well the GNU bits do not do that. If you report a GDB but and they find out you weren't using the BFD or Libiberty included with GDB, the bug report would probably be dropped on the floor. The testing cycles that Binutils and GDB goes thru, uses the version that was branched with that piece of software. Go run diffs over these packages from Binutlis 2.11.2 and GDB 5.1.1 and see the differences. Now go diff those libiberty's with the one in GCC 2.95.3. > > Why is binutils a nightmare?? I don't find it to be one. > > You edited out the rest from my list of examples. Ok. You did want to > drop Alpha, because supporting the compiler on it seemed too difficult > at some point -- how is that for an example? Or do you claim the > proposed addition is the most nightmarish of them all? No I want to drop Alpha because no one cares about it and not just the compiler, but much more often kernel, WARNS, and other changes break the Alpha. > > 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"? > > It is _inelegant_ and is inconsistent with our use of shared libraries > for most of the rest of the system. Look, we wanted ssh and we added it. Oh crist! Go find a REAL problem to solve than something that you don't like the esthetics of. > > I frankly just don't see what "problem" it is you are trying to solve. > > I want libbfd (and libiberty) to be installed as part of the OS. > Preferably -- in both, static and dynamic fashions, consistent with the > rest of the libraries. That is NOT a problem. That is just some mis-founded goal with no basis of purpose. > Because FreeBSD's base source already includes the libbfd source and > builds the library during build. It just does not install it, for some > reason. If all targets are enabled, this cross-toolchain ports would not > even need their own versions of this libraries, most likely... FEH!! You are going to patch the nightmare (yes I will use that term to describe this) autoconf and autoMake bits that come with the GNU tools? Good luck! In general with GNU tools, JUST LEAVE THINGS THE WAY THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR INTENDED THEM TO BE. -- -- 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?20020206192238.B3347>