Re: Should binutils source tree include zlib source?

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:30 PM, David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com> wrote:
> H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Dave Korn
>> <dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Dave Korn
>>>> <dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Binutils uses zlib. Should zlib source be included in binutils tree?
>>>>>>
>>>>>  Can't see any terribly good reason to.  It's widely available as a
>>>>> standard
>>>>> system library, we aren't in any need of forking it, and it would add
>>>>> to the
>>>>> binutils project's maintenance/support burden, wouldn't it?
>>>>>
>>>> Zlib source is included in gcc source tree. It is useful for
>>>> cross binutils.
>>>
>>>  Well, I guess I don't get it (cross and native binutils both use the
>>> host
>>> zlib after all, or are you talking about including it for building a
>>> target
>>> library?), but I won't object if you think it could be useful.  It's not
>>> like
>>> it gets updated upstream very often, after all.
>>>
>>
>> I have Canadian cross binutils where host != build != target.
>>
>
> Using this logic, we should include glibc (and perhaps uClibc) in the
> binutils tree as well.
>

It will be very nice if you can get it work easily.


-- 
H.J.