This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: -z combreloc


On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 11:12:32PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Andrew,
> >    I'm rather amused that you are giving debian such grief
> >for daring to use the actual version number coupled with
> >a packaging version number, yet I haven't hear a peep out
> >of you about RedHat doing the same. I would remind you
> >that RedHat srpms for binutils, while they are based on
> >the hjl tarballs, contain patches from maintainers who
> >are not hjl. Also RedHat isn't the only rpm based system.
> >So one could just as easily make the argument that RedHat
> >should never release anything without using 2.11.92.rh.5
> >or such...
> >
> >from  "/pub/redhat/linux/7.1/en/os/i386/SRPMS"
> >-rw-r--r--    4 0        0         7064578 Apr 08  2001 
> >binutils-2.10.91.0.2-3.src.rpm
> 
> To be clear, I'm not trying to give you grief.  I'm raising a flag 
> saying ``hey this could be a problem''.  Given the above, it looks like 
> there really is an issue.
> 
> You'll notice that I did manage to get Red Hat to change their GDB 
> version number.  Hopefully Debian did the same with their GDB distribution.

No, we don't, but probably I should fix that :)  The only patch I
actually apply beyond a CVS tarball was just committed to CVS, though,
so I really don't see a reason to.  Debian is fairly good about making
it clear where bug reports should go.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]