What's up with elfutils?
nmiell at comcast.net
Sun May 28 19:20:58 UTC 2006
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 11:46 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 09:35 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
> >>Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>>If you think there is any issues that needs to be discussed as part of
> >>>Fedora development feel free to do so especially if you are willing to
> >>>contribute towards resolving any such problems.
> >>Remove elfutils from Fedora Core.
I just want to jump in here and note that I'm not advocating this.
> > So, you're saying that anything which isn't controlled by Fedora
> > shouldn't be shipped in Fedora Core?
> > I guess we might as well stop trying to ship anything then as we don't
> > have direct control over *most* of what is shipped.
> Most of those projects have maintainers who respond in a somewhat timely
> fashion, and/or a public source tree (CVS, svn, etc.), and/or other
> forms of not-just-Red Hat participation. Certainly most Fedora projects
> have "upstream." That's fine. What is not fine is a project that just
> sits there like a bump on a log despite open Bugzilla issues and
> demonstrated interest from "downstream" Fedora.
> > Note that elfutils is directly required by a number of packages within
> > Fedora Core and thus can't just be removed
> According to "rpm -qR elfutils" they are [excluding self references]:
> which are all part of glibc. So elfutils can be flushed just by
> merging it into glibc. Everybody else uses binutils. Not many
> developers have ever used the "eu-" versions of nm, strip, size,
> readelf, addr2line.
[root at entropy ~]# repoquery --whatrequires --alldeps --resolve
"elfutils*" | sort -u | grep -v "^elfutils"
And, having looked at binutils compared to elfutils and the other
libelfs out there, I'd much rather use libelf than libbfd.
Nicholas Miell <nmiell at comcast.net>
More information about the devel