This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: -z combreloc
- To: Jack Howarth <howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu>
- Subject: Re: -z combreloc
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 23:12:32 -0400
- Cc: chris at debian dot org, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <200110140136.VAA35340@nitro.msbb.uc.edu>
> 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.
enjoy,
Andrew