| 1 |
On 29 Sep 2015 19:54, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:21:14 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > if your package depended on binutils because you wanted to link against |
| 4 |
> > libbfd or libopcodes, or you omitted the dep entirely (because you didn't |
| 5 |
> > notice?), there's a new package you should convert to using: |
| 6 |
> > sys-libs/binutils-libs |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > this supports subslots & multilib and is sane to depend on unlike binutils |
| 9 |
> > where you can have multiple versions installed or active versions selected. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> What about stable packages? Since binutils-2.25.1-r1 is stable, |
| 12 |
> binutils-libs-2.25.1 should be stabilized as well and I have a |
| 13 |
> package which needs this (dev-util/oprofile). |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
there's no real reason to accelerate stabilization. stable binutils (well |
| 16 |
binutils-config to be exact) continues to provide the libs/headers and will |
| 17 |
do so until everything is ready to go stable. |
| 18 |
-mike |
Archives