binutils 2.17

[Kok, Auke]

Jean Michel Bruenn wrote:
> 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:

NO, I AM NOT LAZY

*this* forum is the way we discuss technical stuff about lunar. Everyone should 
not have to surf to tens of webpages every time someone has a brilliant idea.

Either you post a summary on the list, or you don't post at all.

I'm tired of all these teasing messages that say: "Hey, I have a great idea. 
Look here: http:/blurb/feh/, Bye". They are a waste of my time. Why can't you 
take the time to paste 1/2 sentences in the e-mail and *show me* why what you 
have is useful? then *I* can decide whether it's worth my time actually visiting 
the site and work with it, or not.

If you don't give me that opportunity, you *force* me to go to your 200-line 
webpage and read all of it from the top to the bottom. That is extremely 
ineffective and frustrating.

YOU HAVE TO HELP US MAKE US WORK EFFICIENTLY.

> 	-----------------------------------------------------------
> 	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

please summarize the content of this webpage.

> 	------------------------------------------------------------
> 	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).

that one might be a bit vague to describe, but I can see it's usefullness. Any 
idea on the state of this?

> 	-------------------------------------------------------------
> 	Patch3: binutils-2.17-posix-1.patch
> 	Well.. Could be usefull... Could be senseless... Maybe
> 	interesting when crosscompiling..
> 
> 	Desc:
> 		Makes binutils Posix Compliant

well, I doubt anyone actually knows what this means, but it doesn't sound like 
we need it. But yet again it's quite vague.

> 	--------------------------------------------------------------
> 	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.

decent description, not sure we care enough. we really ought to make mkstemp 
safe instead of just have it removed from gcc ;)

Auke