[zlib PATCH 1 of 3] complibs/zlib: Add zlib support for binutils and gdb
Wed Nov 23 21:01:00 GMT 2011
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Michael Hope <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Khem Raj <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Yann E. MORIN
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> Zhenqiang, All,
>>> On Tuesday 22 November 2011 13:04:12 Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>>>> # HG changeset patch
>>>> # User Zhenqiang Chen <email@example.com>
>>>> # Date 1321943491 -28800
>>>> # Node ID a7e34002ac6dcab9dded1c0b04391637b23e2e82
>>>> # Parent a6c68712024f406df7d2da4af377f51982615833
>>>> complibs/zlib: Add zlib support to remove the dependence on system zlib
>>>> for binutils and gdb.
>>> Why don't you want to use the system zlib? What's the use-case? zlib has
>>> a history of many security holes, and using static means you won't get
>> I guess if you are building on systems which has either no zlib or
>> different version of zlib
>> but I am looking for better use case from Zhenqiang here
> Hi all. Our goal is to have a generic Linux binary build of the
> Linaro toolchain but, on reflection, I wonder if we're doing it the
> wrong way.
> The requirement is to have the same binary build work on RHEL 5,
> long-term supported releases like Ubuntu LTS, and the latest release
> of the most popular distros such as Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, and
> openSUSE. The plain is to statically link everything except libc and
> libm which is why Zhenquiang proposed this patch.
> I'm wondering if we should target the LSB instead. The build tools
> are a bit clunky but we gain standardised versions of libc, libm,
> libz, libncurses, and others.
yes LSB would be way to go if its for linux hosts.
> I've prototyped it up and the build works OK. Thoughts? Has anyone
> worked with the LSB before?
> -- Michael
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Standard_Base
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
More information about the crossgcc