Re: binutils-gold and symbols files
Peter Fritzsche wrote:
> 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.
Ok, /usr/share/doc/autotools-dev/README.Debian.gz tells me about it. It
doesn't mention a libtoolize.... just that it should be replaced. So I would
say that this is a good way if the automake-dev maintaner says that it is the
way to do.
As only some packages use the regex feature of libtool, only these packages
must real update libtool after the bug #554821 is closed.
Best regards,
Peter
Reply to: