why don't add gdb package?
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
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*
These switches are not documented AFAICT. I also tried out the
undocumented switch --disable-nls and it worked properly.
More information about the blfs-dev