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
is that a "NO!" as in "I'M NOT GOING TO AGREE WITH ANYTHING YOU SAY?"
> Max told you what a nightmare it would be. He is 110% right.
Max only objected to using dynamic versions of this two libraries, BTW.
> PLEASE take some advice from two people that are experienced in the
> issues.
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, and
the compilers, and the whole Alpha port, to name a few -- if the
postings to this mailing lists (including those from you) are any
indication. Yet, we (including you) do them anyway, because they are
worth it (for whatever reasons).
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.)
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?
-mi
P.S. NetBSD installs shared libbfd:
http://wuarchive.wustl.edu/systems/unix/NetBSD/NetBSD-release-1-5/src/gnu/lib/libbfd/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
