On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 01:43:12PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 07:54:53PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > Because libbfd does not have a stable ABI suitable for public use, nor is > > > there currently a way to express a dependency on this library without > > > things breaking (you can't depend on "binutils" and have any guarantee of > > > getting the correct lib). > > > > Does make me wonder why we ship libbfd.so and libopcodes.so, instead of > > just the static libraries. > > To reduce the size of the binutils package, iirc. It has about a dozen > binaries, all of which need libbfd.
No, that's why we ship libbfd-2.15.so; I was wondering why we need to ship the libbfd.so symlink. Yes, I'm familiar with how much space it saves to use a shared libbfd :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
