Re: weird limitation on the system's binutils

On Saturday 01 July 2006 15:08, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> On Saturday 01 July 2006 07:55, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> = IMHO, the FreeBSD base system should provide tools for doing native
> = development - anything beyond that belongs in ports.  Given that
> = binutils supports quite an extensive range of targets (of the order of
> = 100), building them all is impractical and a waste of resources for
> = virtually everyone who uses FreeBSD.
> 
> I would agree with this myself, except that anything in the ports would have 
> to _duplicate_ or replace the system one. All of it -- not even just bfd -- 
> because it is all linked statically.

Yes, this is normal behavior for ports that install things like alternative 
versions of gcc.

> > libbdf.a is built by /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/libbfd/Makefile.
> > That should be a fairly simple change to arrange for it to build and
> > install the .so as well.
> 
> Installing both libbfd-s certainly would be a good start... As things stand, 
> every port needing it -- including various different compilers -- builds it 
> own version. This is, largely, explained by the GNU's stupidity of bundling
> a different version with each tool (gdb, compiler), but the bundled bfds are 
> not THAT incompatible, and the system-installed version can include the 
> compatible superset...

Actually, in the past this has proven quite difficult, hence the current 
arrangment of various tools linking statically against their own private 
copy.

-- 
John Baldwin