From: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>
To: Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>
Cc: GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, GDB <gdb@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: RFC: Add zlib source to src CVS resposity
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:13:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CCEF548.4000502@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mcrk4ky18i6.fsf@google.com>
Hi Guys,
>>> So this becomes a question for the binutils maintainers: do
>>> the binutils want to be self-contained, or do they want to follow the
>>> path of gcc and require additional libraries to be installed before a
>>> build can succeed?
As I see it the pros of having a copy of the zlib sources in the
binutils tree are that:
* The tools can be built on a host that does not have
zlib installed.
* We can be sure exactly which version of zlib is being
used.
* It simplifies our configure scripts and sources. We
always know that zlib is present and the API to use.
Whereas the cons of having our own copy of zlib are that:
* We have to manually import any bug-fixes or enhancements
to the official zlib sources. Which means that we have
to watch the zlib sources and be ready to evaluate any
changes.
* We have to make sure that zlib will build on all of the
hosts that we care about. Should the situation arise
where the zlib does not build on a particular host, and
the zlib maintainers are not interested in making it
build there, then it will be down to us to fix it. Or
else abandon compression support on that host.
* It is essentially a waste of space on hosts that already
have zlib installed.
At the moment I feel that the pros outweigh the cons. What do other
people think ?
Cheers
Nick
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-01 17:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <AANLkTikYSxV51_452Wuqox6mQ3_QwNjzNkBgV=NzKk4f__16997.3676828251$1288473196$gmane$org@mail.gmail.com>
2010-10-30 21:37 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2010-10-30 22:28 ` H.J. Lu
2010-10-31 18:42 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2010-10-31 18:58 ` H.J. Lu
2010-10-31 19:13 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2010-11-01 17:13 ` Nick Clifton [this message]
2010-11-01 17:19 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2010-11-01 23:56 ` Alan Modra
2010-11-02 1:03 ` Christopher Faylor
2010-11-02 8:19 ` Nick Clifton
2010-11-02 13:22 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2010-11-09 14:19 ` Mike Frysinger
2010-11-02 10:46 ` Paolo Bonzini
2010-10-31 19:54 ` Weddington, Eric
2010-10-30 21:12 H.J. Lu
2010-10-30 22:19 ` John Reiser
2010-11-01 17:21 ` Nick Clifton
2010-11-01 17:23 ` Nathan Froyd
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4CCEF548.4000502@redhat.com \
--to=nickc@redhat.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).