binutils 2.17

[Jean Michel Bruenn]

Hello ;-)

> This means something like that. However i don't have the correct
> locations of the patch files. Can you fill them in please.
>
> Florin

Let's wait for an answer from sofar, maybe he and others are against
such patches.

"Kok, Auke" <sofar at foo-projects.org> wrote:
> please include (here, on this list) why we should do so. Are they
> important? required? fixes???
> 

For people who can't simply open their favorite browser:

	I saw that you have some problems using glibc, binutils, gcc
	etc. I was working on an 'hardened' lunar linux version and
	updated manually to glibc 2.5, gcc 4.1.2, binutils 2.17.
	i patched this 3 modules with some patches from the LFS
	Community - I recompiled my system 3 times, i did this, on
	a second box two (tested on athlon xp 2600+ and intel p4
        1,8ghz)

	So why it's running here on two different boxes (i use
        some non-lunar patches) and not at lunaric-boxes?

	Now, the patches:

	-----------------------------------------------------------
	Patch1: binutils-2.17-lazy-1.patch
	I don't know if this is needed - but i think so.

	Desc:
		This adds -z lazy option, inverse of -z now.

	It could be interesting cause of this:

		http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2006-06/msg00190.html
	------------------------------------------------------------
	Patch2: binutils-2.17-branch_update-1.patch
	Well.. bugfixes are generally a good thing, aren't they?

	Desc:
		This is the binutils-2_17-branch (bug fix branch)
		update, compared from binutils-2.17-release and
		binutils-2_17-branch with all the fluff removed (CVS
		entries, maintainer files, etc).
	-------------------------------------------------------------
	Patch3: binutils-2.17-posix-1.patch
	Well.. Could be usefull... Could be senseless... Maybe
	interesting when crosscompiling..

	Desc:
		Makes binutils Posix Compliant
	--------------------------------------------------------------
	Patch4: binutils-2.17-hardened_tmp-3.patch
	Could be interesting too, it's just using a better function
	and so removing some compiler warnings....... 

	Desc:

		This patch uses mkstemp(3) and mkdtemp(3) for
		temporary file creation, if they are
		available, rather than the default mktemp(3). This is
		safer and removes some compiler warnings.

Cheers
Jean