about port:binutils (and port:gdb)

[René J.V. Bertin]

Hi,

How appropriate is the note attached to port:binutils nowadays?

I installed it recently to test GNU ar in combination with software that tries to use MRI scripts to generate and modify static libraries. A priori every command is prefixed and I haven't noticed any problems with other ports ... yet.
If there are known problems with certain components, why not put installation of those in a variant? /methinks that it can't hurt to have "standard" versions of utilities like ar...

The port does conflict with port:gdb, something I had already observed in my Linux adaptations of the two, something I solved in port:gdb with a somewhat hard-handed

{{{
    # we install a certain number of files also installed by port:binutils.
    # Avoid existential problems: delete our copy and require binutils so
    # everything is complete.
    depends_run-append \
                port:binutils

post-destroot {
    # remove items already installed by port:binutils
    file delete -force ${destroot}${prefix}/share/locale
    file delete -force ${destroot}${prefix}/share/info/bfd.info
    file delete -force ${destroot}${prefix}/lib/libopcodes.la
    file delete -force ${destroot}${prefix}/lib/libopcodes.a
    file delete -force ${destroot}${prefix}/lib/libbfd.la
    file delete -force ${destroot}${prefix}/lib/libbfd.a
    file delete -force {*}[glob -directory ${destroot}${prefix}/include/ *.h]
}
}}}

I haven't (yet) checked this on Mac because my experience with gdb (v7) is that it only works with very simple software and won't detect symbols from libraries (if they don't have the corresponding .dSYM resource installed maybe). Has that improved?

R.