On Dec 16, 2009, at 18:43, Dan Ports wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 04:10:50PM -0800, Darren Weber wrote: >> Is it possible and desirable to have a single port to control the >> libiberty.a and have all other ports depend on it?
I don't believe it's desirable. >> (This probably requires >> ways to switch off the build of libiberty.a in the config for various ports >> like binutils, gcc stuff, etc.). > > I don't think so -- as far as I can tell, and for reasons I have never quite > grasped, libiberty isn't distributed separately, or even really > versioned; its source is directly included in the gcc sources. > > I think the right solution here is for each port to install its own > version of libiberty in a separate place. It look like some ports > already do this (gcc43, for one). Maybe the actual problem you're > running into is that llvm-gcc doesn't do this? > > It's possible that it isn't even necessary to install libiberty.a in > the first place. (isn't it typically linked in to gcc and friends > statically?) But I'm less sure about this. I filed the bug report about llvm-gcc42's /opt/local/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib here: http://trac.macports.org/ticket/20889 Unfortunately the maintainer has not reacted to the problem. My recommendation is to not install llvm-gcc42 until this issue is resolved. If anyone can assist in resolving this issue, it would be appreciated. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
