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. ;-)Received on Sat Jul 08 2006 - 04:13:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:58 UTC