From owner-freebsd-ports Thu Feb 21 13:50: 9 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 A9D3837B400 for ; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:50:01 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1LLo1943004; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:50:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:50:01 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200202212150.g1LLo1943004@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: "David O'Brien" Subject: Re: ports/34908: libpng port makes bad dynamic library on -CURRENT Reply-To: "David O'Brien" 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: "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 Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:45:42 -0800 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-ports" in the body of the message