Should binutils source tree include zlib source?

[David Daney]

H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Dave Korn
> <dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Dave Korn
>>> <dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Binutils uses zlib. Should zlib source be included in binutils tree?
>>>>>
>>>>  Can't see any terribly good reason to.  It's widely available as a standard
>>>> system library, we aren't in any need of forking it, and it would add to the
>>>> binutils project's maintenance/support burden, wouldn't it?
>>>>
>>> Zlib source is included in gcc source tree. It is useful for
>>> cross binutils.
>>  Well, I guess I don't get it (cross and native binutils both use the host
>> zlib after all, or are you talking about including it for building a target
>> library?), but I won't object if you think it could be useful.  It's not like
>> it gets updated upstream very often, after all.
>>
> 
> I have Canadian cross binutils where host != build != target.
> 

Using this logic, we should include glibc (and perhaps uClibc) in the 
binutils tree as well.

David Daney