-z combreloc
Daniel Jacobowitz
dan@debian.org
Sun Oct 14 08:29:00 GMT 2001
On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 11:12:32PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Andrew,
> > I'm rather amused that you are giving debian such grief
> >for daring to use the actual version number coupled with
> >a packaging version number, yet I haven't hear a peep out
> >of you about RedHat doing the same. I would remind you
> >that RedHat srpms for binutils, while they are based on
> >the hjl tarballs, contain patches from maintainers who
> >are not hjl. Also RedHat isn't the only rpm based system.
> >So one could just as easily make the argument that RedHat
> >should never release anything without using 2.11.92.rh.5
> >or such...
> >
> >from "/pub/redhat/linux/7.1/en/os/i386/SRPMS"
> >-rw-r--r-- 4 0 0 7064578 Apr 08 2001
> >binutils-2.10.91.0.2-3.src.rpm
>
> To be clear, I'm not trying to give you grief. I'm raising a flag
> saying ``hey this could be a problem''. Given the above, it looks like
> there really is an issue.
>
> You'll notice that I did manage to get Red Hat to change their GDB
> version number. Hopefully Debian did the same with their GDB distribution.
No, we don't, but probably I should fix that :) The only patch I
actually apply beyond a CVS tarball was just committed to CVS, though,
so I really don't see a reason to. Debian is fairly good about making
it clear where bug reports should go.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
More information about the Binutils
mailing list