On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 11:47 AM Simon Marchi <sim...@simark.ca> wrote: > > On 2020-07-28 2:31 p.m., H.J. Lu wrote: > >>> 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 > > Ok but... that doesn't mean anything. I think we made it quite clear that the > issue is with your build environment, not the build system (pkg.m4).
Binutils configure script is supposed to detect if a feature is usable. In my perspective, pkg.m4 failed on my build environment. > >Can it be moved to gdb directory? > > It can, but I don't think it would be a good idea. It would just be confusing > for binutils and GDB to both use libdebuginfod but use different methods of > finding it. Somebody building binutils + GDB with libdebuginfod support > against > a libdebuginfod in a non-default location would have to specify the location > of > the library in two different ways. > > Simon -- H.J.
