X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; q=dns; s= default; b=ystI1KwW6PLAKqo+h/b45GrAUvtOzpntRQZ/bUNalXSwrXkKbu+1P KJFPxkn+tcwFXzwpwOjgjpcj7MKIzNELXwCu6WYLYvUQzhfTYIbxNbDbox4WfIbi BWHM+E8ju1e/mDfghcnYaOHpg3zQQlV8y8lTDQXajCGSAASvEutuJw= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id :list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post :list-help:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=default; bh=PSI+GZiuN1Wk1cW0vOwF0Jbm0Ec=; b=Y3Zet/o3KFbr5Qkufl6c3MpZlaXD DCCh8ppDmF6AbxskG4XoWercf9LTfJyHZbJVnYikWWmPY/8Y8z8qLh1FrkhyR3Nj SxMe8TXf5BiSP7xGD99DlSBIYPh+GnAVHDbhGNyRfG/DkBVBQJz9We6sjmmLZPPu XW2/W7WJI7u0Prs= Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,TW_BJ,TW_YG autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:52:45 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Issue with binutils-2.23.1-1 Message-ID: <20130415165245.GC4639@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20130415132155 DOT GC24092 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20130415134809 DOT GA4639 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20130415143733 DOT GC5992 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20130415143954 DOT GB4639 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20130415151154 DOT GA7850 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130415151154.GA7850@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) On Apr 15 11:11, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 04:39:54PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >On Apr 15 10:37, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 03:48:09PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> >On Apr 15 15:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> >> On Apr 15 08:54, Chris Sutcliffe wrote: > >> >> > Hi All, > >> >> > > >> >> > On 6 March 2013 08:40, Chris Sutcliffe wrote: > >> >> > > I noticed a problem after upgrading to the 2.23.1-1 release of > >> >> > > binutils that cygport was no longer generating debuginfo files. After > >> >> > > digging in to it a little and following up on the cygwin-ports mailing > >> >> > > list, Yaakov determined that the objdump included in the 2.23.1 > >> >> > > release of binutils does not handle the "-l" flag properly. Reverting > >> >> > > to 2.22.51-2 solved the issue for me and Yaakov confirmed that the > >> >> > > issue does not exist in CVS HEAD either. > >> >> > > >> >> > This issue has resurfaced in the 2.23.52.20130309 release of bintuils > >> >> > currently shipping with Cygwin. My cygport based packages are no > >> >> > longer producing debuginfo packages. > >> >> > >> >> Erm... 2.23.52-1 is a 64bit-only package. I created all the debuginfo > >> >> packages with this version. 32 bit is at 2.23.51-1, and I'm pretty > >> >> sure I created the latest OpenSSH packages with that version, including > >> >> debuginfo. > >> > > >> >Oh, hmm. The 2.23.51-1 package actually contains the 2.23.52.20130309 > >> >binutils files, so never mind what I wrote. > >> > >> Just to be clear: The current 32-bit version of binutils is 2.23.51-1. > >> It was released to address the problems with objdump introduced by a, > >> er, "illegal" upload by someone who was confused about binutils > >> maintainership. There is no 32-bit version named 2.23.52.20130309 > >> or 2.23.1-1. > > > >If you run `ld --version' on ld from the 2.23.51-1 package, it returns > >"GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.23.52.20130309" > > Again, the version that was uploaded in March was to fix the problem > reported in this thread. I was just pointing out the version mismatch. The package is called 2.23.51, while the binaries claim to be 2.23.52. I did not comment on the behaviour. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Maintainer cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple