On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 07:54:53PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > Because libbfd does not have a stable ABI suitable for public use, nor is > > there currently a way to express a dependency on this library without > > things breaking (you can't depend on "binutils" and have any guarantee of > > getting the correct lib). > > Does make me wonder why we ship libbfd.so and libopcodes.so, instead of > just the static libraries. To reduce the size of the binutils package, iirc. It has about a dozen binaries, all of which need libbfd. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature