On 01.05.23 14:53, Simon McVittie wrote:
Source: binutils
Version: 2.40-2
Severity: normal
binutils-x86-64-linux-gnu can be compiled as a native binutils to be run on
amd64 and emit amd64 binaries, or as a cross-binutils to be run on some
other architecture like for example ppc64el (and still emit amd64 binaries).
The native binutils-x86-64-linux-gnu:amd64 contains symlinks
/usr/bin/x86_64-linux-gnu-gold -> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld.gold for the gold
linker, and
/usr/bin/x86_64-linux-gnu-ld -> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld.bfd for the traditional
BFD linker, together with their man pages.
The cross packages like binutils-x86-64-linux-gnu:ppc64el contain
/usr/bin/x86_64-linux-gnu-ld -> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld.bfd, but do not have
/usr/bin/x86_64-linux-gnu-gold -> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld.gold.
This seems inconsistent: I would have expected that binutils-TUPLE would
either always provide TUPLE-gold, or never provide TUPLE-gold.
this is an oversight, will fix this in experimental.
Similarly, binutils-x86-64-linux-gnu:amd64 provides TUPLE-gp-archive (and
other gp- tools) and TUPLE-gprofng, but binutils-x86-64-linux-gnu:ppc64el
doesn't provide those.
the profiling parts are not included in the cross packages by intent. Is there a
use case where these are necessary? Shouldn't you be able to use the native
packages?
