Okay, but - just for my understanding -  why isn't it possible to have
glibc in prefix ?

Am 24.09.2011 15:02, schrieb Fabian Groffen:
> On 24-09-2011 08:58:00 -0400, Martin Luessi wrote:
>>>> If my time allows it, I'll look into it in five minutes, this is just a
>>>> message to everyone having this issue that there may be a light on the
>>>> horizon! ;)
>>>
>>> try USE=vanilla, see if that works
>>
>> Be careful with that. I was able to install gcc 4.5 using -vanilla bit
>> then later on random packages would fail to compile. In particular I
>> had a problem with libxml2, which seemed to get linked to system
>> libraries instead of the ones in prefix. I'm not sure if this is
>> related, all I know is that the problem goes away when using gcc 4.2.
> 
> You're absolutely right.  It was meant as try to see if one of the
> patches affected the build.  The produced GCC is unusable in Prefix
> indeed.
> 
>> Also, have a look at the gcc ebuild the regular portage tree, gcc
>> 4.5.2 requires >=glibc.2.8, I assume there is a reason for that.
> 
> 

-- 
Moritz Schlarb