This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: Add zlib source to src CVS resposity
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at sourceware dot org>
- To: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, GDB <gdb at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 21:02:50 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFC: Add zlib source to src CVS resposity
- References: <AANLkTikYSxV51_452Wuqox6mQ3_QwNjzNkBgV=NzKk4f__16997.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <AANLkTinR-RO0RpKPsSi9E5uUytGaxH-g1bwjRVLMx_V2@mail.gmail.com> <email@example.com> <4CCEF548.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20101101235550.GF26513@bubble.grove.modra.org>
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 10:25:50AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 05:13:44PM +0000, Nick Clifton wrote:
>> * 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.
>This would mean we need to keep machinery to conditionally compile
>in compressed debug support, removal of said support being HJ's stated
>reason for importing zlib.
>I'm against importing zlib into binutils, and I think we should keep
>support of compressed debug sections conditional, to avoid potential
>bootstrap problems or circular dependencies.
FWIW, I agree. I think that having to keep zlib up-to-date wrt
potential security issues or other serious bugs is a burden that we
shouldn't take on. Shouldn't we be trying to use any system shared
libraries for these types of things specifically so that the vendor
can handle problems for us?