From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Feb 21 13:40:13 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@hub.freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56BC337B416 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:40:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1LLe2S41189; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:40:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:40:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200202212140.g1LLe2S41189@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: "Michael D. Harnois" Subject: Re: ports/34908: libpng port makes bad dynamic library on -CURRENT Reply-To: "Michael D. Harnois" Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR ports/34908; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Michael D. Harnois" To: Terry Lambert Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, 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 Date: 21 Feb 2002 15:39:08 -0600 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. -- Michael D. Harnois bilocational bivocational Pastor, Redeemer Lutheran Church Washburn, Iowa 1L, UST School of Law Minneapolis, Minnesota EDUCATION, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding. -- Ambrose Bierce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message