Re: backward/forward compatibility of binutils

[Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw at lug-owl dot de>]

On Fri, 2006-07-07 09:22:23 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 02:51:12PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > On the other hand, those patches didn't happen that often, so one
> > probably _could_ do that.
> 
> ... but when it breaks, you get to keep both pieces.

Of course. I didn't mention that it would be a nice thing to have. I'm
actually opposed to it.

> I'd ask that if you want to ship a libbfd for public use, only ship the
> static library.  It may be useful to ship the dynamic library, if only
> because it saves a lot of space in as/ld/objcopy/objdump/strip, but gdb
> may not want the same copy.

Full ACK.

MfG, JBG

-- 
Jan-Benedict Glaw       jbglaw@lug-owl.de    . +49-172-7608481             _ O _
"Eine Freie Meinung in  einem Freien Kopf    | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg  _ _ O
 fÃr einen Freien Staat voll Freier BÃrger"  | im Internet! |   im Irak!   O O O
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(NEW_COPYRIGHT_LAW | DRM | TCPA));

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature