libiberty.{a,h} again..

Arjan Oosting ajoostin at
Wed Feb 26 18:51:52 PST 2003

Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> On February 13, 2003 11:43 pm, Greg Schafer wrote:
>>Can anyone put up a good case why we should keep libiberty? The fact that
>>both gcc and binutils install libiberty.a is a bug in both packages IMHO.
> The lack of good cases makes me think nobody has one, or don't even know what 
> libiberty is all about (which isn't a suprise either. It's all hairy stuff).
> I vote for removal unless and have made a note in Bugzilla of this, but 
> there's plenty time left to re-evaluate.

I was just compiling nmap and i saw its configure script checking for 
libiberty.h. It doesn't include it in the tarball, so it must use the 
one provided by the system (binutils version). I don't know much about 
libiberty, or if nmap really needs it and i'm too tired to check it out 
right now. But when i saw configure checking for this header i rememberd 
this thread and thougth u guys should know.

	Greetings Arjan

This signature has been infected by the signature virus.
Please help me spread and copy me to your .signature
Arjan Oosting
Student Informatica, Universiteit Utrecht
E-mail  	: ajoostin at

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list