Re: Bug#558412: binutils-dev: Please provide libbfd_pic.a
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> This did not seem to get any attention on debian-devel, so I am cross
> posting to debian-release. I would really be interested to know if
> others think that the binNMU approach suggested by Matthias is
> acceptable and/or viable.
Unless it's an option to include oprofile into binutils source package,
I don't see what's wrong with the binNMU approach?
Cheers
Luk
> Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>> Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> tags 558412 + wontfix
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> On 28.11.2009 19:10, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
>>>> Package: binutils-dev
>>>> Version: 2.18.1~cvs20080103-7
>>>> Severity: normal
>>>>
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>
>>>> In order to solve #537744 (filed against oprofile), it is necessary for
>>>> binutils-dev to provide a libbfd_pic.a library. This is like what is
>>>> already done for libiberity_pic.a.
>>> won't fix. oprofile can be built using binary NMU's when the bfd version
>>> changes.
>> I am not sure that is really a viable solution. What do others thing?
>> Is requiring a binNMU of oprofile each time that the bfd version changes
>> something that makes sense?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Roberto
>>
>
>
Reply to: