[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#606050: perf (GPLv2-only) linked with libbfd (GPLv3-only), so undistributable



Package: linux-tools-2.6.32
Version: 2.6.32-28
Severity: serious
Tags: patch

perf automatically uses bfd_demangle() from libbfd if available.
Unfortunately their licences are not compatible (GPLv2-only vs
GPLv3-only) and the result is undistributable.  perf can alternately
use cplus_demangle() from libiberty, which is still under GPLv2+
(not that this is mentioned in the copyright file for binutils).

Upstream fix is:

commit d11c7addfe0fa501cb54c824c0fac3481d527433
Author: Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca>
Date:   Mon May 10 16:43:35 2010 -0400

    perf symbols: allow forcing use of cplus_demangle
    
    For Fedora, I want to force perf to link against libiberty.a for
    cplus_demangle, rather than libbfd.a for bfd_demangle due to licensing insanity
    on binutils. (libiberty is LGPL2, libbfd is GPL3.)
    
    If we just rely on autodetection, we'll end up with libbfd linked against us,
    since they're both in binutils-static in the buildroot.

We need to backport that and enable the build option.

Ben.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
  APT prefers proposed-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'proposed-updates'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages linux-tools-2.6.32 depends on:
ii  binutils                      2.20.1-15  The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii  libc6                         2.11.2-7   Embedded GNU C Library: Shared lib
ii  libelf1                       0.148-1    library to read and write ELF file

Versions of packages linux-tools-2.6.32 recommends:
ii  linux-base   2.6.36~rc7-1~experimental.1 Linux image base package

Versions of packages linux-tools-2.6.32 suggests:
pn  linux-doc-2.6.32              <none>     (no description available)

-- no debconf information



Reply to: