Re: Building binutils, egcs, gdb, etc

[rich-paul@rich-paul.net]

You're right, on both counts.  But neither of these seems inconsistant
with the requirements of current open-source projects ( my god, look at
gnome ... I had to install gobs of packages ), and it seems to
be worth pursuing from my point of view, as the Mozilla people would say,
"For the good of the code".  One problem with the current approach besides
package size and build time is that there is always for the potential for
mismatches between binutils and gcc, and a programmer working on both
projects would need to know that implementations of 'the same' function
may vary between projects.  Not to mention that projects written with 
binutils need to be read with gdb and visa-versa.

May I ask why these libraries are in constant flux?  It *seems* like their
purpose is pretty cut and dried, but it could be that I do not understand
the problem they solve well enough to know.

Regards,
Rich

P.S.  I would be willing to maintain either or both of these libraries,
if there is interest in changing to this method of distribution.  I've been
looking to find a nitch in a good opensource project, and the project seems
like a worthy one to me.  I'm a c++ guy, but I can do k&r, it's just like
watching a movie in black and white.  <G>

---
There is a party that  |  Libertarian Party  |  A victimless crime is
supports the right to  |  http://www.lp.org  |     a contradiction in 
free speach and        |    The Party of     |                 terms.
encryption!!           |      Principal      |  

On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Martin v. Loewis wrote:

> > It seems to me like the best way to approach this situation would be to
> > factor out the common parts into a seperate distribution.  This would have
> > the following results ( in theory ).
> [...]
> > Downsides:
> 
> You forgot an important one
> 
>     4) Somebody would have to maintain it, over a period of many
>        years, and be quite responsive to requests of the maintainers
>        of the various packages, as well as to problems end-users have
>        with it. Otherwise, maintainers will just grab a copy of the
>        base package, integrate it, and modify it to their needs.
> 
> I don't see anybody stepping forward to do that. Of course, there is
> also
> 
>     5) Packages are more difficult to install for typical
>        end-users. End-users don't build the entire chain at one time,
>        but they build gdb whenever a new version is release, and
>        binutils whenver that is updated. They now download the source
>        and compile. Under your scheme, they also have find out what
>        else they need (i.e. the base package), and where they can get
>        it.
> 
> Regards,
> Martin
>