This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB 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: [patch] build-id .debug files load (like .gnu_debuglink)


> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 15:25:14 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
> CC: eliz@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, roland@redhat.com
> 
> I think we should stick with references to official GNU releases in
> our documentation.

I'd support that if most installations had official versions.  But
that doesn't seem to be the case in the recent years: almost every
GNU/Linux box I get my hands on have "2.aa.bb YYYYMMDD" version on it.
Here's a typical example (from none other than a gnu.org machine,
btw):

    eliz@fencepost:~$ ld --version
    GNU ld version 2.16.91 20060118 Debian GNU/Linux

Given that this seems to be the rule rather than exception, I see no
sense in insisting that unofficial versions do not exist, or aren't
used widely enough to be mentioned in the docs.


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