This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: -z combreloc
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: -z combreloc
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan at debian dot org>
- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 11:28:27 -0400
- Cc: Jack Howarth <howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu>, chris at debian dot org,binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <200110140136.VAA35340@nitro.msbb.uc.edu> <3BC902A0.2090005@cygnus.com>
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