Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 12:04:03 -0400 From: Geoff Speicher <geoff@sea-incorporated.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>, zeising@freebsd.org, Martin Matuska <mm@freebsd.org>, Craig Leres <leres@ee.lbl.gov>, Joerg Wunsch <joerg@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: devel/binutils and devel/gnulibiberty version mismatch Message-ID: <CAFMeXOYHTJp8ZOUDCH5-YnzqT_x7UdrbWe02EJS89xO7OGHg0Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAFMeXObnF_yFixBcMA6BVEVyzb-4zcweV80NJfah-mem-YSqag@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAFMeXOboxKFjYZpYNt0o0-LRKCfzQgj6_t9wSL0N1mK1LKpKSQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMeXOaFk0OvbA7f7E87P9rre4-FpjTaLGducZTpFGuNtUZNTA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFMeXObnF_yFixBcMA6BVEVyzb-4zcweV80NJfah-mem-YSqag@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bringing in other parties for feedback, based on their mention in the
binutils commit (svn link below).
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Geoff Speicher
<geoff@sea-incorporated.com>wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Geoff Speicher <
> geoff@sea-incorporated.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Geoff Speicher <
>> geoff@sea-incorporated.com> wrote:
>>
>>> devel/binutils is at version 2.24, and as of 16-Dec-2013 no longer
>>> installs libiberty [1], but does install libbfd, which gets linked against
>>> the copy of libiberty (v2.24) in the build tree.
>>>
>>> To link an application against libbfd from devel/binutils, one must
>>> install devel/gnulibiberty to resolve the missing symbols, but that port
>>> uses libiberty from binutils v2.19.1 which doesn't contain all the symbols
>>> from v2.24 (e.g. filename_ncmp at a minimum).
>>>
>>> There is a separate devel/libbfd port that matches the version in
>>> devel/gnulibiberty but if your port requires ${LOCALBASE}/libbfd.a and
>>> devel/gnulibiberty as build dependencies, and you already have
>>> devel/binutils installed, then your port will fail when linking.
>>>
>>> Should I just mark the port as conflicting with devel/binutils or is
>>> there a better workaround for this?
>>>
>>> [1] http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=336642
>>>
>>
>> Sorry for responding to myself, but it gets worse: the port I'm working
>> on requires gcc from ports (at least on FreeBSD 8.4, because it needs a
>> c++11 compiler), which depends on devel/binutils, so I can't conflict with
>> binutils or else I don't have a compiler.
>>
>> Is there any reason why devel/libbfd and devel/gnulibiberty shouldn't be
>> upgraded to v2.24?
>>
>>
> Joerg, maintainer of devel/libbfd and devel/gnulibiberty (and cc'ed on
> this response), and I have come to the conclusion that these two ports
> should simply be removed in favor of devel/binutils (maintained by Martin,
> also cc'ed). Until recently, only four ports required libbfd and/or
> gnulibiberty: devel/avarice <https://www.freshports.org/devel/avarice/>,
> emulators/skyeye <https://www.freshports.org/emulators/skyeye/>,
> devel/fpc-bfd <https://www.freshports.org/devel/fpc-bfd/>, and
> archivers/tardy <https://www.freshports.org/archivers/tardy/>. Joerg
> originally created the ports for libbfd and gnulibiberty to support his
> port of devel/avarice, but that no longer needs them after the last upgrade
> so he just dropped the dependency<http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=353276>leaving only three dependent ports, which can be changed to depend on
> devel/binutils <https://www.freshports.org/devel/binutils/>; instead.
>
> Martin/Joerg, would the two of you be willing and able to coordinate to
> change binutils so that it installs libiberty.a (and headers) again,
> replace the dependencies for those three remaining ports, and remove the
> two ports that are no longer needed? Let me know if there is anything I can
> do to help.
>
> Geoff
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFMeXOYHTJp8ZOUDCH5-YnzqT_x7UdrbWe02EJS89xO7OGHg0Q>