Since this discussion in 2005: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg01085.html
binutils has got a shlibs file that specifies a tight dependency on the
current upstream version. Thus frequent binNMUs of any packages linking
dynamically against libbfd or libopcodes are needed, or those packages will
hold back binutils from migrating, as is the case right now, but there should
hopefully at least be no breakage.
I just want to check that the prohibition in the package description of
binutils-dev ("Note that building Debian packages which depend on the shared
libbfd is Not Allowed") is still in force and that doko hasn't just forgotten
about it. In that (former) case I'm volunteering to fix the offending packages
(lush and nitpic) and close the bugs my friend Niels opened.
(It does seem a bit pointless to help packages that link dynamically that much
if it's forbidden, but on the other hand binutils is definitely not a proper
library package.)
--
Magnus Holmgren holmg...@debian.org
Debian Developer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
