From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Jack Howarth , chris@debian.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: -z combreloc Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 08:29:00 -0000 Message-id: <20011014112827.A22839@nevyn.them.org> References: <200110140136.VAA35340@nitro.msbb.uc.edu> <3BC902A0.2090005@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00246.html On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 11:12:32PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Andrew, > > I'm rather amused that you are giving debian such grief > >for daring to use the actual version number coupled with > >a packaging version number, yet I haven't hear a peep out > >of you about RedHat doing the same. I would remind you > >that RedHat srpms for binutils, while they are based on > >the hjl tarballs, contain patches from maintainers who > >are not hjl. Also RedHat isn't the only rpm based system. > >So one could just as easily make the argument that RedHat > >should never release anything without using 2.11.92.rh.5 > >or such... > > > >from "/pub/redhat/linux/7.1/en/os/i386/SRPMS" > >-rw-r--r-- 4 0 0 7064578 Apr 08 2001 > >binutils-2.10.91.0.2-3.src.rpm > > To be clear, I'm not trying to give you grief. I'm raising a flag > saying ``hey this could be a problem''. Given the above, it looks like > there really is an issue. > > You'll notice that I did manage to get Red Hat to change their GDB > version number. Hopefully Debian did the same with their GDB distribution. No, we don't, but probably I should fix that :) The only patch I actually apply beyond a CVS tarball was just committed to CVS, though, so I really don't see a reason to. Debian is fairly good about making it clear where bug reports should go. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer