On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 10:43 AM Simon Marchi <sim...@simark.ca> wrote: > > On 2020-07-28 1:26 p.m., H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:28 AM Simon Marchi <sim...@simark.ca> wrote: > >> > >> On 2020-07-28 12:07 p.m., H.J. Lu via Gdb-patches wrote: > >>> What doesn't work with my pkg.m4 change? > >> > >> (1) It deviates from upstream. I don't think we should do this unless > >> absolutely needed. That's not the case here, the change is just there > >> because you don't want to set up pkg-config properly for > >> cross-compiling. > > > > Since when binutils can't fix issues in other packages? > > Like I said, we can make local changes if necessary, to fix issues. But > there is > no issue to fix here, all is needed is to have a proper build environment. > > Doing an unnecessary local change just adds burden on the next person who > will sync this file with upstream, so it should not be taken lightly.
I have submitted a merge request to fix it upstream. > > Unlike gdb, binutils should have as few external depecies as possible. > > debuginfod brings in some so many external depecies. > > I'm not a binutils maintainer, so that's not my role to decide about that > tradeoff... but we are talking about having an optional (only needed when > enabling support for libdebuginfod) *build* dependency on a quite standard > tool. That's not very demanding. > > If you don't want to deal with libdebuginfod, you can also just build with > --without-debuginfod. My binutils script had been working fine until pkg.m4 was added. Can it be moved to gdb directory? -- H.J.
