This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: libiberty.a question

From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
To: halla3 at corp dot earthlink dot net
Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 16:10:44 -0400
Subject: Re: libiberty.a question
References: <1082403681.23053.26.camel@kuu.eng.atl.earthlink.net> <200404191947.i3JJlc8e012421@greed.delorie.com> <1082405325.23053.33.camel@kuu.eng.atl.earthlink.net>

> I am no developer, but would it not be better to have libiberty in its
> own pkg?  Or does each software tweak it?  Just curious.

Doing that causes versioning problems.

> > The one that comes with the sources you're trying to build.  If you
> > need to choose, choose the more recent one.
> 
> Do most ppl just forcefully overwrite the file?  ie. --force-overwrite
> in dpkg?

If you need to worry about that, whoever is packaging your sources is
not doing it right.  You should never have two packages installing
their sources in the same directory.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: libiberty.a question
  - From: Andrew Hall

References:
- libiberty.a question
  - From: Andrew Hall
- Re: libiberty.a question
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: libiberty.a question
  - From: Andrew Hall

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]