From: Vincent T. <vt...@un...> - 2009-11-18 21:58:22
|
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Keith Marshall wrote: > On Monday 16 November 2009 18:07:24 Chris Sutcliffe wrote: >> It's more to do with the fact that binutils, gdb, and I believe >> gcc all use and bundle libbfd. Going forward we'll need to >> determine the best approach on handling shared libraries like bfd. > > There are two issues here: > > 1) We have two (or more) distinct binary packages, both/all of which > claim to "own" the same component library. This is untenable; only > one package should "own" any given component -- in the case of BFD, > that should probably be the binutils, and it should not be bundled > with any other package, (or, if it must, it should be distinctly > versioned, so that both distributed components can co-exist within a > single installation). i agree, it should be in binutils only. > 2) The BFD component in gdb-7 has been build with i18n support > enabled, forcing users of that version to also install/distribute an > appropriate i18n support library, (gettext in this case). Since we > are gradually moving towards offering i18n support in all packages, > this will become more of a universal requirement anyway, but in the > transitional phase, there may be some surprises in store; the gdb-7 > release notes should make it clear that gettext is a prerequisite. why forcing people in using i18n support ? I don't want as it adds another (useless for me) dependency and increase startup time. > IIRC, Aaron has already provided GCC-4.4 with i18n support anyway, so > any BFD bundled with that should also depend on gettext; the next > release of binutils should follow suit. :( Vincent Torri |