Re: RFC: Add zlib source to src CVS resposity

[Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>]

Hi Guys,

>>> So this becomes a question for the binutils maintainers: do
> > > the binutils want to be self-contained, or do they want to follow the
> > > path of gcc and require additional libraries to be installed before a
> > > build can succeed?

As I see it the pros of having a copy of the zlib sources in the 
binutils tree are that:

  * The tools can be built on a host that does not have
    zlib installed.

  * We can be sure exactly which version of zlib is being
    used.

  * It simplifies our configure scripts and sources.  We
    always know that zlib is present and the API to use.

Whereas the cons of having our own copy of zlib are that:

  * We have to manually import any bug-fixes or enhancements
    to the official zlib sources.  Which means that we have
    to watch the zlib sources and be ready to evaluate any
    changes.

  * We have to make sure that zlib will build on all of the
    hosts that we care about.  Should the situation arise
    where the zlib does not build on a particular host, and
    the zlib maintainers are not interested in making it
    build there, then it will be down to us to fix it.  Or
    else abandon compression support on that host.

  * It is essentially a waste of space on hosts that already
    have zlib installed.

At the moment I feel that the pros outweigh the cons.  What do other 
people think ?

Cheers
  Nick