why don't add gdb package?

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at swbell.net
Thu Apr 6 22:00:12 PDT 2006


Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> 
>> I'm not a programmer, but this is my guess.  In order for gdb to be
>> able to properly debug binaries, it needs to link libbfd.a and
>> libiberty.a into the gdb binary.  It builds its own since it can't
>> depend on the host and it may be tied to specific versions of libbfd
>> and libiberty.  The fact that they're installed seems to be a flaw
>> since running gdb shouldn't depend on static libraries being present
>> on the host.
> 
> I signed up on the gdb mailing list and asked why the libraries are
> installed over binutils' libraries.  Maybe we'll get an answer.

I did get an answer from David Jacobowitz:

Binutils and GDB are maintained in the same CVS repository.  In
general, you should use whichever copy of the shared libraries is
newer, but it's rarely a big deal.  For all these I would just stick
with the copy from binutils.

GDB will never use the shared versions anyway; it always uses its own
copies.

----------

I also asked how to deal with the library/header/info files
installation.  The response:

I believe all of those directories have configure options to disable
installation.  Try --disable-install-libbfd and
--disable-install-libiberty.  Opcodes is keyed off BFD.
-----------------

When testing, I found that the --disable-install-libiberty switch is not
honored (libiberty.a is still installed).  I also found that
--disable-install-libbfd did not disable installation of the bfd-info*
files.

These switches are not documented AFAICT.  I also tried out the
undocumented switch --disable-nls and it worked properly.

  -- Bruce



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list