On 2020-07-28 1:26 p.m., H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 9:28 AM Simon Marchi <sim...@simark.ca> wrote: >> >> On 2020-07-28 12:07 p.m., H.J. Lu via Gdb-patches wrote: >>> What doesn't work with my pkg.m4 change? >> >> (1) It deviates from upstream. I don't think we should do this unless >> absolutely needed. That's not the case here, the change is just there >> because you don't want to set up pkg-config properly for cross-compiling. > > Since when binutils can't fix issues in other packages?
Like I said, we can make local changes if necessary, to fix issues. But there is no issue to fix here, all is needed is to have a proper build environment. Doing an unnecessary local change just adds burden on the next person who will sync this file with upstream, so it should not be taken lightly. > Unlike gdb, binutils should have as few external depecies as possible. > debuginfod brings in some so many external depecies. I'm not a binutils maintainer, so that's not my role to decide about that tradeoff... but we are talking about having an optional (only needed when enabling support for libdebuginfod) *build* dependency on a quite standard tool. That's not very demanding. If you don't want to deal with libdebuginfod, you can also just build with --without-debuginfod. Simon