From owner-freebsd-current Thu Feb 21 13:46:23 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.92.13.169]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00E1A37B419; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:46:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.11.6/8.11.1) id g1LLjgB37177; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:45:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from obrien) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:45:42 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" To: "Michael D. Harnois" Cc: Terry Lambert , Stijn Hoop , "Alexander N. Kabaev" , Bjoern Fischer , current@FreeBSD.ORG, "freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD. Org" , vova@sw.ru Subject: Re: ports/34908: libpng port makes bad dynamic library on -CURRENT Message-ID: <20020221134542.B23386@dragon.nuxi.com> Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG References: <3C6D49E0.3000506@gte.com> <20020221000531.A57633@pcwin002.win.tue.nl> <20020221020341.C13952@dragon.nuxi.com> <1014298402.526.33.camel@mharnois.mdharnois.net> <3C754AAA.9117A19@mindspring.com> <1014327548.19351.0.camel@mharnois.mdharnois.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <1014327548.19351.0.camel@mharnois.mdharnois.net>; from mharnois@cpinternet.com on Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 03:39:08PM -0600 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 03:39:08PM -0600, Michael D. Harnois wrote: > On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 13:29, Terry Lambert wrote: > > "Michael D. Harnois" wrote: > > > On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 04:03, David O'Brien wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 12:05:31AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Maybe this can now be committed? > > > > > > > > NOT until I have sufficient feedback from the FSF Binutils developers. > > > > > > OK, I'm confused. binutils has been broken for three weeks. We have a > > > patch that we know fixes, at the very least, one of the known problems. > > > However, it can't be committed without feedback from the developers. > > > > > > So having binutils broken indefinitely is better than applying a patch > > > that *might* have to be backed out or altered later? > > > > I believe the intent is to ensure that the patches make it > > back into the FSF distributed code, so that in the future, > > there is less maintenance required for FreeBSD platforms. > > This is all wonderful. > > But then it seems to me that the entire new binutils should have been > backed out until it worked. Just like XFree-4.2.0 was backed out. It works in general for 'make world' and is suffient for FreeBSD developent -- the purpose of 5-CURRENT. It is also allowing us to find bugs that would otherwise go unfixed in Binutils 2.12.0 release. Or would you perfer we stick to 2.11.x forever -- BTW that would not give us support for IA-64 or x86-64. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message