binutils deps

Jeremy Utley jeremy at
Mon Jan 24 17:46:01 PST 2005

Robert Connolly wrote:

>FSF was under a lot of pressure to release 2.15, and it wasn't really 
>finished. They released it too early, or maybe too late. They did it at a 
>time when toolchain features were changing in both gcc and glibc. I expect 
>2.16 to be more usable, but I don't expect it until after gcc4 (autumn/winter 
>2005). FSF Binutils is generally better for us, it gets a better audit than 
>HJL's, but 2.15 is an exception.
>But anyway, I've had a couple people show me build errors with binutils-pass1 
>because they didn't have bison installed on their host. It would be prudent 
>to add m4/bison/flex to the deps list.
Yes, this should probably be done - could you please open a bugzilla 
entry for this?  However, m4/bison/flex are also required for the FSF 
2.15 release, so it's a dep anyway you look at it.

I happen to disagree with your preference of FSF over HJL's code.  HJL's 
releases are much more widely tested on the linux platform than FSF 
releases, considering the fact that every linux distro that I'm aware of 
uses HJL's releases.  If we were doing something non-linux, then I might 
feel differently.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list