Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 00:39:35 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: obrien@freebsd.org Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...) Message-ID: <20020212021215.8CF299F11E@okeeffe.bestweb.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote: >> 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. I believe, what I see. And that is, FreeBSD includes both -- gdb and gcc, but only one libbfd, thankfully. And I want to be able to use that same libbfd for my own development and for porting of other compilers and tools. This IS the problem I'm trying to solve. > WHY do you want to cause this problem of non-matching bits? So they'll be matched and fixed, leading to a better world 8-) > 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! See above. >> 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 bug 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. Evidently, this does not prevent the FreeBSD project from using the same libbfd for its gdb and gcc. Even though, the presense of both /usr/obj/usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/libbfd/libbfd.a and /usr/obj/usr/src/i386/ccd/src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/libbfd/libbfd.a is somewhat mistifying to me, but I'm sure they are built from the same source. > 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. Alright, so you do find it nightmarish. But we still support Alpha, for whatever reason. This means, that the simple "it would be a nightmare" is not an argument. "It is not worth the trouble" -- would be, and I'm arguing, that it is not true in this case. >> > 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. > Go find a REAL problem to solve than something that you don't like the > esthetics of. This is a REAL problem. "Your theorem is ugly, so it must be incorrect." (Some famous mathematician) >> > 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. Well, than nothing is a problem. Which problem is FreeBSD's very existence trying to solve, huh? Why don't we all go and "get a life", instead of spending hours in front of the computers? Please... >> 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. Yes, I very well might. Or, may be, I'll introduce Makefiles of my own -- Something already done for the C compiler and all the other GNU tools in the base, BTW. -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message 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?20020212021215.8CF299F11E>