On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:00:11PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: > Michael K. Edwards wrote: > >binutils and modutils both depend on it.
> On flex? No. At least not in unstable. Yes, it does. $ apt-cache showsrc binutils Package: binutils Binary: binutils-hppa64, binutils, binutils-doc, binutils-dev, binutils-multiarch Version: 2.15-5 Priority: standard Section: devel Maintainer: James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Build-Depends: autoconf (>= 2.13), bison, flex, gettext, texinfo, binutils (>= 2.9.5.0.12), gcc (>= 2.95.2-1), dejagnu (>= 1.4.2-1.1), expect (>= 5.32.2-1), dpatch, file Architecture: any Standards-Version: 3.6.1.0 Format: 1.0 Directory: pool/main/b/binutils Files: b20cf60b07384592ed5fa71314c6d2d9 1401 binutils_2.15-5.dsc ea140e23ae50a61a79902aa67da5214e 15134701 binutils_2.15.orig.tar.gz 055e74792e7118ddf33ae6b04d640818 38173 binutils_2.15-5.diff.gz $ > However, Debian seems to have addressed the issue by providing both > versions of flex. I don't see what would prevent us from going on with > that practice. > >Or is the LCC proposing to standardize on a set of binaries without > >specifying the toolchain that's used to reproduce them? > Linking and calling conventions should be standardized and should > survive for reasonably long. We need to know what we use to build the > packages, but we are not currently proposing to standardize development > tools on the target system. Not standardizing the toolchain used to build a set of standardized binaries would seem to leave the LCC open to a repeat of the gcc-2.96 fiasco, however... -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
