On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 15:06 +0100, Mike Crowe wrote:
> gcc always needs binutils in order to be useful. If binutils-cross is
> considered to be a safe dependency then gcc-cross can be reconstructed into
> the sysroot without binutils. Anyone who tries to use the compiler will end
> up using the sys
gcc always needs binutils in order to be useful. If binutils-cross is
considered to be a safe dependency then gcc-cross can be reconstructed into
the sysroot without binutils. Anyone who tries to use the compiler will end
up using the system binutils which is either a bad thing (relying on system
t
