This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: binutils version of snapshot builds
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> I think trying to replace "GNU binutils" with something else is the wrong
> thing to do. The vendor string should be an additional information in the
> version string, not replacing anything. After all, the package bundle is
> still GNU binutils. This also makes the first GNU redundant. The actual
> version string should look like this:
The package bundle may or may not be GNU binutils, that's up to the
packager. It may be just a distribution of GNU binutils (with a
distributor version there), it may be a larger toolchain or OS
distribution considered as a whole with the toolchain or OS considered the
larger package.
> ld (GNU binutils) 2.17.50.20070321
That depends on whether you consider "ld" or "GNU ld" to be the "standard
or canonical name" for the linker. You can change that - of course
breaking even more of the linker version checks out there. If changing
it, you might wish to go over the canonical names for every program in
binutils - why "GNU ld" and "GNU assembler" at present rather than "GNU
linker" and "GNU assembler" or "GNU ld" and "GNU as"?
> The vendor string should either be appended inside the parens, or put in
> another pair of parens before the version.
The GNU Coding Standards formats are
canonical-name version
canonical-name (package-name) version
canonical-name (package-name package-version) version
and --with-pkgversion allows you to specify what's inside the parentheses
as package-name or package-name package-version. You have full
flexibility in what you pass there - whether you describe it as GNU
binutils or a larger distribution or both and what versions you include.
Because of the wide range of different ways in which binutils is
distributed, this flexibility is useful.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com