This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: Building gdb from source
- From: "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
- To: "'Bruce Dubbs'" <bdubbs at linuxfromscratch dot org>, <gdb at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 16:08:31 +0100
- Subject: RE: Building gdb from source
On 07 April 2006 16:02, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 07 April 2006 02:07, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>> I like to build packages from source. When I build gdb-6.4:
>>> ./configure --prefix=/usr
>>> make install
>>> gdb's Makefile places the following files in /usr/lib:
>>> libbfd.a libbfd.la libiberty.a libopcodes.a libopcodes.la
>>> The problem is that these files already exist from binutils-2.16.1.
>>> Is there any reason to prefer the libraries from binutils over gdb or
>>> vice versa? I believe this could be a problem as the binutils libraries
>>> include dynamic libraries that could be out of sync with the gdb static
>>> libraries and that the gdb .la files do not recognize the dynamic
>>> libraries at all.
>> Well, you shouldn't be configuring with --prefix=/usr unless you are
>> prepared to overwrite your basic O/S installation in any case.
> I see you are not familiar with LinuxFromScratch. :)
Well, if you're replacing your binutils at the same time, what's the
problem? The old libs are about to be overwritten in any case!
The point is, that a distro should have a consistent set of gcc, binutils
and gdb. Since binutils and gdb live in the same repository, if you either
take a consistent snapshot of the cvs, or if you take gdb and binutils
releases that are roughly-contemporary, they're bound to be 'in-sync' FAPP.
So if you're building gdb to replace (or even to /be/) your system gdb, you
should already have chosen one that's compatible with your binutils version,
or you should be about to replace your binutils to match. Either way,
overwriting the old libs won't matter.
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....