Re: binutils-gold and symbols files
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009, Peter Fritzsche wrote:
> > The output of `ld -v 2` is "GNU gold (GNU Binutils for Debian 2.20) 1.9".
> > So it will catch the 1.9 here and just say "hey, i am sure that you are
> > evil".... which is of course wrong. So auto* stuff must be updated here.
> > I will create a bug for libtool.
> One is supposed to use Debian libtool, instead of whatever crap
> (non-libtool) upstream added to the tarball, and this has been true for
> many years, now.
> Still, policy doesn't mandate that Debian libtool be used, and it will take
> about 15 years or so to get all packages updated if you go the "let it
> filter upstream" way ;-)
> If that's a major problem for a complete switch to -gold, you may want to
> keep that in mind. Maybe we could mandate that all packages be
> re-libtoolized before build, using Debian libtool... but I fear that will
> be quite a lot of trouble.
Is this real the case? I have tried to libtoolize a package and it broke with:
libtool: Version mismatch error. This is libtool 2.2, but the
libtool: definition of this LT_INIT comes from an older release.
libtool: You should recreate aclocal.m4 with macros from libtool 2.2
Just copying libtool to that package worked, but maybe there are still some
corner cases were this doesn't work. /usr/share/doc/cdbs/cdbs-doc.html for
example /strongly/ discourage this.
Please understand me right. I don't have something against it, but I don't
know how to do it right and what autotool-gurus in Debian says about it.