This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
RE: backward/forward compatibility of binutils
- From: "Dave Korn" <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>
- To: "'Mikhail Teterin'" <mi+kde at aldan dot algebra dot com>, "'Jan-Benedict Glaw'" <jbglaw at lug-owl dot de>
- Cc: "'Daniel Jacobowitz'" <drow at false dot org>, <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:40:24 +0100
- Subject: RE: backward/forward compatibility of binutils
On 07 July 2006 15:44, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> On Friday 07 July 2006 09:27, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> = Of course. I didn't mention that it would be a nice thing to have. I'm
> = actually opposed to it.
>
> Why not? How hard is it to keep API compatibility (no need for ABI)?
Fairly. If it was trivial, it would be that way already!
> Why do you insist on every tool bundling its own version?
Well, how about "Because if you bork your system shared libs, and you badly
need a get-out-of-jail-free card, having statically linked executables in your
toolchain may well save your life." ?
The toolchain binaries are so vital to the system that they should carry on
working no matter what else goes wrong. For me, that's well worth the
overhead of a bit of disk space. YMMV of course.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....