Major CVS LFS bug - binutils-

Greg Schafer gschafer at
Mon Jan 27 16:34:54 PST 2003

On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 12:19:28AM -0000, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Notified gcc or binutils upstream or both?

All three :-)
(including glibc - glibc's code is the victim here)

> IMO It's a binutils
> versioning bug, I thought all GNU software followed the triplet
> convention (can't remember off the top of my head where I thought I'd
> read that).  Anyway, if you're correct in thinking that it's only
> documentation updates that were done for the release then it
> should be safe for the book to revert to 2.13.2 shouldn't it?

I should think so. Simple to look at the diff.

> Whilst writing this I've seen Gerards confusion come and gone, yet I'm
> still a bit bemused.  I'm assuming that HJ Lu's date string is it's
> mitigating factor, i.e. it gets checked first, regardless of the version
> string.  So, why can't GNU's binutils date string be parsed in the same
> fashion?  My MinGW (Minimal GNU for Windows) system here shows a date
> anyway:
> $ as --version
> GNU assembler 2.13.90 20030104
> I don't have access to my linux box at the moment so can't check whether
> this was a MinGW specific change, but I wouldn't have thought so.

tigers-lfs:~# ld -v
GNU ld version 20021126
tigers-lfs:~# /home/gws/testing/bin/ld -v
GNU ld version

> Oh sod it, I've just retyped this thing 3 times following on from
> different replies.  Let's just go with HJ's release hey?  If it'll make
> gcc and the chaps on LKML happy then it can't be bad can it?

Careful. A week hasn't passed yet since HJ's latest release. One of the
criteria I mentioned a while back was to wait a week or so for the dust to
settle (remember HJ releases more closely follow the binutils CVS HEAD).

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