Re: [zlib PATCH 1 of 3] complibs/zlib: Add zlib support for binutils and gdb

[Michael Hope <michael dot hope at linaro dot org>]

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Yann E. MORIN
> <yann.morin.1998@anciens.enib.fr> wrote:
>> Zhenqiang, All,
>>
>> On Tuesday 22 November 2011 13:04:12 Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>>> # HG changeset patch
>>> # User Zhenqiang Chen <zhenqiang.chen@linaro.org>
>>> # Date 1321943491 -28800
>>> # Node ID a7e34002ac6dcab9dded1c0b04391637b23e2e82
>>> # Parent ?a6c68712024f406df7d2da4af377f51982615833
>>> complibs/zlib: Add zlib support to remove the dependence on system zlib
>>> for binutils and gdb.
>>
>> Why don't you want to use the system zlib? What's the use-case? zlib has
>> a history of many security holes, and using static means you won't get
>> bug-fixes.
>
> I guess if you are building on systems which has either no zlib or
> different version of zlib
> but I am looking for better use case from Zhenqiang here

Hi all.  Our goal is to have a generic Linux binary build of the
Linaro toolchain but, on reflection, I wonder if we're doing it the
wrong way.

The requirement is to have the same binary build work on RHEL 5,
long-term supported releases like Ubuntu LTS, and the latest release
of the most popular distros such as Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, and
openSUSE.  The plain is to statically link everything except libc and
libm which is why Zhenquiang proposed this patch.

I'm wondering if we should target the LSB[1] instead.  The build tools
are a bit clunky but we gain standardised versions of libc, libm,
libz, libncurses, and others.

I've prototyped it up and the build works OK.  Thoughts?  Has anyone
worked with the LSB before?

-- Michael
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq