| 1 |
On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 11:11 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 25-04-2008 09:53:41 +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 10:14 +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On 24-04-2008 23:53:51 +0100, Alan Hourihane wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > Using gcc-config fails compared to what binutils-config does for me. |
| 6 |
> > > > |
| 7 |
> > > > It turns out that this fails... |
| 8 |
> > > > |
| 9 |
> > > > env -i portageq envvar CHOST |
| 10 |
> > > > |
| 11 |
> > > > whereas in binutils-config we just do... |
| 12 |
> > > > |
| 13 |
> > > > portageq envvar CHOST |
| 14 |
> > > > |
| 15 |
> > > > Doing the former, gives me.... |
| 16 |
> > > > |
| 17 |
> > > > env: /root/gentoo/usr/bin/portageq: Invalid executable file format |
| 18 |
> > > |
| 19 |
> > > Does your /root/gentoo/usr/bin/portageq have an absolute shebang? Mine |
| 20 |
> > > does. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > Yes. |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > > > Is there any reason to use "env -i" ?? |
| 25 |
> > > |
| 26 |
> > > it cleans the environment, probably for that case to avoid garbage (set |
| 27 |
> > > by the user) to influence portageq's output. Must have been a reason |
| 28 |
> > > for it at some point. Feels wrong they aren't aligned in |
| 29 |
> > > binutils-config and gcc-config, though. |
| 30 |
> > |
| 31 |
> > Funnily enough. |
| 32 |
> > |
| 33 |
> > env /root/gentoo/usr/bin/portageq - works |
| 34 |
> > env -i /root/gentoo/usr/bin/portageq - Invalid executable file format |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> I think your platform needs something in the evironment to spawn the |
| 37 |
> process. env -i wipes that out. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Indeed. I'll take a closer look. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Any chance of getting gcc-config/binutils-config actually agreeing |
| 42 |
though ? |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Alan. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
gentoo-alt@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives