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

Re: Linux Core Consortium

On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:00:11PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> >binutils and modutils both depend on it.

> On flex? No. At least not in unstable.

Yes, it does.

$ apt-cache showsrc binutils
Package: binutils
Binary: binutils-hppa64, binutils, binutils-doc, binutils-dev, binutils-multiarch
Version: 2.15-5
Priority: standard
Section: devel
Maintainer: James Troup <james@nocrew.org>
Build-Depends: autoconf (>= 2.13), bison, flex, gettext, texinfo, binutils (>=, gcc (>= 2.95.2-1), dejagnu (>= 1.4.2-1.1), expect (>= 5.32.2-1), dpatch, file
Architecture: any
Format: 1.0
Directory: pool/main/b/binutils
 b20cf60b07384592ed5fa71314c6d2d9 1401 binutils_2.15-5.dsc
 ea140e23ae50a61a79902aa67da5214e 15134701 binutils_2.15.orig.tar.gz
 055e74792e7118ddf33ae6b04d640818 38173 binutils_2.15-5.diff.gz

> However, Debian seems to have addressed the issue by providing both 
> versions of flex. I don't see what would prevent us from going on with 
> that practice.

> >Or is the LCC proposing to standardize on a set of binaries without 
> >specifying the toolchain that's used to reproduce them?

> Linking and calling conventions should be standardized and should 
> survive for reasonably long. We need to know what we use to build the 
> packages, but we are not currently proposing to standardize development 
> tools on the target system.

Not standardizing the toolchain used to build a set of standardized binaries
would seem to leave the LCC open to a repeat of the gcc-2.96 fiasco,

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: