weird limitation on the system's binutils

[Joerg Wunsch]

As John Baldwin wrote:

> > Halving that, and installing the result to be usable by ports
> > would be a decent improvement, would not it?

> Only if it doesn't suffer from all the same problems as libbfd.a.

What problems, btw.?  Only curious.

Historical note: one of my ports (devel/avarice) needs a libbfd.a, so
I once made that port.  As libbfd requires a GNU libiberty (it uses
internal libiberty functions that are not documented, ick!), I also
made that port.

I don't mind seeing that one go away though.  Neither of these two
ports has been anything like a hobby for me. ;-)

-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)