Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2006 08:12:59 +0200 From: Joerg Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>, Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: weird limitation on the system's binutils Message-ID: <20060708061259.GD84700@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <200607071708.43790.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200607010009.09231@aldan> <20060705171517.H18236@fledge.watson.org> <200607071555.00993.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <200607071708.43790.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As John Baldwin wrote: > > Halving that, and installing the result to be usable by ports > > would be a decent improvement, would not it? > Only if it doesn't suffer from all the same problems as libbfd.a. What problems, btw.? Only curious. Historical note: one of my ports (devel/avarice) needs a libbfd.a, so I once made that port. As libbfd requires a GNU libiberty (it uses internal libiberty functions that are not documented, ick!), I also made that port. I don't mind seeing that one go away though. Neither of these two ports has been anything like a hobby for me. ;-) -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060708061259.GD84700>