@nickc Is this for 2.36 or 2.35, the change request says 2.35 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BINUTILS235

@mohanboddu It is for 2.36. Ie this change request:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BINUTILS236

(I apologise if there was a confusion over the release version. I created this ticket first, then the 2.36 change request afterwards).

@nickc can you confirm that this is intended for F34 (i.e. that it supersedes the Binutils 2.35 change proposal)?

@bcotton Yes - the 2.36 rebase is intended for F34.

@nickc What is the status on this change? The mass rebuild is scheduled for this Wed, Jan 20th 2021 but binutils is still at 2.35 in rawhide.

Pinging @bookwar

So after a discussion with Jakub, Florian, Nick (Change Owner) as well as management, we've agreed to push this out to F35. So this should no longer stand in the way of the mass rebuild.

Any questions you can direct to me here or privately (law@redhat.com).

There is only issue I would have with sticking with 2.35 is that we are using 2.35.1 + lots of patches. Most/all of those patches are actually on the binutils_2_35 branch, but there never was an 2.35.2 release. So basically we are using a binutils that no other distro has. And some of those fixes are really needed to handle gcc11 dwarf5 correctly.

There never was a 2.35.2 release because upstream thought those things would be fixed by 2.36 and people would be encouraged to upgrade to binutils 2.36 and gcc11 together.
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2020-November/114163.html

This isn't enough reason to push for 2.36 in f34. But it might be nice to convince upstream to do an actual 2.35.2 release that matches what we will ship with f34 (or then, after the mass rebuild, upgrade to that upstream release so we can drop most of our patches).

Mass rebuild is done now. :)