'''bfd cpu opcodes''': shared with ''binutils''
'''libdecnumber''': shared with ''gcc''
('''libiberty''' and '''gnulib''' are already excepted)
There is no stable ABI/API between these libraries. Patch files typically span both ''gdb''/''binutils'' and these library subdirectories.
lib'''bfd'''+lib'''opcodes''' are present as .a and versioned .so by ''binutils''. Heavily discussed in [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=556040 Bug 556040] and [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=576300 Bug 576300].
''gdb'' is in a longerm process of merging with upstream so after the merge is done the decision can be reconsidered.
need more information here.
Do you have references that layout a timeline for this merge? What is being merged? (gcc and gdb? gdb and binutils?)
When you say that patches typically span both gdb/binutils and these libraries, do you mean that the library is frequently diverging or that patches get applied to all three places?
The justification for building and exporting only the static versions of libbfd and libopcodes in binutils was that API/ABI changes frequently. Why does gdb need to bundle as opposed to linking to the static library?
Since all of these tools need to interoperate at such a low level it seems like an exception might be warranted but we need to figure out what form that exception will take so as to encompass tools where this is necessary but exclude tools where this is not.
It has been over half a year since our request for additional information. Could we get an update here?
This was tentatively approved as falling under: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/109
If there are no objections on that ticket within the next week, consider this approved. Have a look at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_granted_exceptions
for how to note the dependencies in your package so that we can find packages that bundle a library should an issue arise that needs to be taken care of.
Login to comment on this ticket.