libiberty packaging troubles

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, Mar 01, 2002 at 01:27:58AM +0000, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2002 at 06:24:45PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> > > 1) We need libbfd as well, there is a risk associated with using a newer
> > > libiberty in our source against an older system libbfd
> > 
> > Libbfd is the same as libiberty in this context.  If you want to use
> > libbfd, you need to include it.
> 
> ouch.
> 
> is there any particular reason this linking isn't allowed ? Does nobody
> else think it's a problem that every single app that uses this stuff has
> to replicate it ?

It doesn't have a defined interface.  The only time it's present on the
system as a shared library is to save space, and I'm not 100% sure why
we ever install the static library.

A binary incompatible change in libbfd probably goes in every month at
the least.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer