Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 15:46:22 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru Cc: obrien@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...) Message-ID: <200202062046.g16KkPQ17117@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <20020207023021.A51865@iclub.nsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7 Feb, Max Khon wrote: > dynamically linked libiberty would be a nightmare. > libbfd anf libiberty do not have version numbers, are not maintained > (i.e. there is no official releases). every project includes its own > libiberty and imho an attempt to find least common denominator will > fail Well, they come to FreeBSD as part of the binutils, right? That's a good start for a version number/release :-) We don't actually build separate libbfd for linker and assembler, and separate for the compiler, do we? Any additional packages (such as those from ports) should be able to use the same libraries, IMHO, even though they may come with their own versions. -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200202062046.g16KkPQ17117>