This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: binutils development (was Re: Problems building binutils-000220 snapshot)
- To: greyham at research dot canon dot com dot au
- Subject: Re: binutils development (was Re: Problems building binutils-000220 snapshot)
- From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at zembu dot com>
- Date: 21 Feb 2000 22:40:38 -0500
- CC: hjl at lucon dot org, binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <20000222012449.B633A7B3@elph.research.canon.com.au>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:24:49 +1100 (EST)
From: greyham@research.canon.com.au (Graham Stoney)
H . J . Lu writes:
> Just a note. You may have better luck with my linux binutils. Unless
> you want to work on binutils, I don't see any reason to use binutils
> in CVS on Linux. It doesn't have all the new features and bug fixes
> which are in my version. My binutils is pretty much in sync with
> sourceware.
Is there any chance that you and the sourceware guys could get together and
work on a single, unified binutils (which just happens to support Linux)?.
The current situation seems to involve duplication of effort and causes
confusion. It sounds a little like the split in gcc/egcs development, which
thankfully is now resolved. Could we do the same for binutils?
The split is not that large, as far as I know. I only have a couple
of patches from H.J. in my mail file. In the message you quote,
H.J. says that his binutils was pretty much in sync with sourceware.
Mainly it's a problem of lack of time on the part of the binutils
maintainers. Because of this, there is not much active binutils
development going on. We all want a unified binutils. There's no
question about that.
Ian