This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Should binutils source tree include zlib source?
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:35 PM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you put it in the source tree
yourself, and configure will pick it up and configure it? Isn't that
why the configury machinery for gcc/binutils is so massive?