From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26127 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2006 14:44:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 26083 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jul 2006 14:44:44 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from aldan.algebra.com (HELO aldan.algebra.com) (216.254.65.224) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 14:44:39 +0000 Received: from aldan.algebra.com (aldan [127.0.0.1]) by aldan.algebra.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k67EiOHG098989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:44:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by aldan.algebra.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id k67EiMGF098988; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:44:22 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com) From: Mikhail Teterin To: Jan-Benedict Glaw Subject: Re: backward/forward compatibility of binutils Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 14:44:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , binutils@sources.redhat.com References: <200607070250.17161@aldan> <20060707132223.GA21313@nevyn.them.org> <20060707132754.GH22573@lug-owl.de> In-Reply-To: <20060707132754.GH22573@lug-owl.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-u" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200607071044.22680@aldan> Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-07/txt/msg00078.txt.bz2 On Friday 07 July 2006 09:27, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: = Of course. I didn't mention that it would be a nice thing to have. I'm = actually opposed to it. Why not? How hard is it to keep API compatibility (no need for ABI)? Why do you insist on every tool bundling its own version? -mi