From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEE43385E83A for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 18:47:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org EEE43385E83A Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CBB81E794; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 14:47:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: V2 [PATCH] PKG_CHECK_MODULES: Check if $pkg_cv_[]$1[]_LIBS works To: "H.J. Lu" Cc: Andreas Schwab , "H.J. Lu via Binutils" , Aaron Merey , GCC Patches , Tom Tromey , GDB References: <20200502022903.175852-1-amerey@redhat.com> <996bd0f9-cec5-119c-19ea-b127cf1bb95d@simark.ca> <87r1svyche.fsf@igel.home> <3209078a-429a-4be7-b151-93c3f4a53655@simark.ca> <0421b2c2-01b4-cf84-855f-24478ade0754@simark.ca> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <68099cb1-522d-5451-3d77-4827e6e3d880@simark.ca> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 14:47:25 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 18:47:33 -0000 On 2020-07-28 2:31 p.m., H.J. Lu wrote: >>> Unlike gdb, binutils should have as few external depecies as possible. >>> debuginfod brings in some so many external depecies. >> >> I'm not a binutils maintainer, so that's not my role to decide about that >> tradeoff... but we are talking about having an optional (only needed when >> enabling support for libdebuginfod) *build* dependency on a quite standard >> tool. That's not very demanding. >> >> If you don't want to deal with libdebuginfod, you can also just build with >> --without-debuginfod. > > My binutils script had been working fine until pkg.m4 was added Ok but... that doesn't mean anything. I think we made it quite clear that the issue is with your build environment, not the build system (pkg.m4). >Can it be moved to gdb directory? It can, but I don't think it would be a good idea. It would just be confusing for binutils and GDB to both use libdebuginfod but use different methods of finding it. Somebody building binutils + GDB with libdebuginfod support against a libdebuginfod in a non-default location would have to specify the location of the library in two different ways. Simon