On 2020-07-28 2:31 p.m., H.J. Lu wrote: >>> 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. > > My binutils script had been working fine until pkg.m4 was added
Ok but... that doesn't mean anything. I think we made it quite clear that the issue is with your build environment, not the build system (pkg.m4). >Can it be moved to gdb directory? It can, but I don't think it would be a good idea. It would just be confusing for binutils and GDB to both use libdebuginfod but use different methods of finding it. Somebody building binutils + GDB with libdebuginfod support against a libdebuginfod in a non-default location would have to specify the location of the library in two different ways. Simon