Re: Issue with binutils-2.23.1-1

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>]

On Apr 15 11:11, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 04:39:54PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Apr 15 10:37, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:48:09PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> >On Apr 15 15:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 15 08:54, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
> >> >> > Hi All,
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > On 6 March 2013 08:40, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
> >> >> > > I noticed a problem after upgrading to the 2.23.1-1 release of
> >> >> > > binutils that cygport was no longer generating debuginfo files.  After
> >> >> > > digging in to it a little and following up on the cygwin-ports mailing
> >> >> > > list, Yaakov determined that the objdump included in the 2.23.1
> >> >> > > release of binutils does not handle the "-l" flag properly.  Reverting
> >> >> > > to 2.22.51-2 solved the issue for me and Yaakov confirmed that the
> >> >> > > issue does not exist in CVS HEAD either.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > This issue has resurfaced in the 2.23.52.20130309 release of bintuils
> >> >> > currently shipping with Cygwin.  My cygport based packages are no
> >> >> > longer producing debuginfo packages.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Erm... 2.23.52-1 is a 64bit-only package.  I created all the debuginfo
> >> >> packages with this version.  32 bit is at 2.23.51-1, and I'm pretty
> >> >> sure I created the latest OpenSSH packages with that version, including
> >> >> debuginfo.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, hmm.  The 2.23.51-1 package actually contains the 2.23.52.20130309
> >> >binutils files, so never mind what I wrote.
> >> 
> >> Just to be clear: The current 32-bit version of binutils is 2.23.51-1.
> >> It was released to address the problems with objdump introduced by a,
> >> er, "illegal" upload by someone who was confused about binutils
> >> maintainership.  There is no 32-bit version named 2.23.52.20130309
> >> or 2.23.1-1.
> >
> >If you run `ld --version' on ld from the 2.23.51-1 package, it returns
> >"GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.23.52.20130309"
> 
> Again, the version that was uploaded in March was to fix the problem
> reported in this thread.

I was just pointing out the version mismatch.  The package is called
2.23.51, while the binaries claim to be 2.23.52.  I did not comment
on the behaviour.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple