| 1 |
Okay, but - just for my understanding - why isn't it possible to have |
| 2 |
glibc in prefix ? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Am 24.09.2011 15:02, schrieb Fabian Groffen: |
| 5 |
> On 24-09-2011 08:58:00 -0400, Martin Luessi wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> If my time allows it, I'll look into it in five minutes, this is just a |
| 7 |
>>>> message to everyone having this issue that there may be a light on the |
| 8 |
>>>> horizon! ;) |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> try USE=vanilla, see if that works |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Be careful with that. I was able to install gcc 4.5 using -vanilla bit |
| 13 |
>> then later on random packages would fail to compile. In particular I |
| 14 |
>> had a problem with libxml2, which seemed to get linked to system |
| 15 |
>> libraries instead of the ones in prefix. I'm not sure if this is |
| 16 |
>> related, all I know is that the problem goes away when using gcc 4.2. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> You're absolutely right. It was meant as try to see if one of the |
| 19 |
> patches affected the build. The produced GCC is unusable in Prefix |
| 20 |
> indeed. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
>> Also, have a look at the gcc ebuild the regular portage tree, gcc |
| 23 |
>> 4.5.2 requires >=glibc.2.8, I assume there is a reason for that. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Moritz Schlarb |
Archives