| 1 |
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:13:42 +0100, Paul Hartman |
| 2 |
<paul.hartman+gentoo@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Paul Stear <gentoo@××××××××××××.com> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Hi all, |
| 7 |
>> I think I have a symbolic link problem. Any thought on how to solve this |
| 8 |
>> error. |
| 9 |
> ... |
| 10 |
>> unexpected reloc type in static binarymake[1]: *** |
| 11 |
>> [install-symbolic-link] |
| 12 |
> ... |
| 13 |
>> LDFLAGS="-Wl,--as-needed,-O1 -Wl,--enable-new-dtags -Wl,--sort-common |
| 14 |
>> -s" |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> See this forum post: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6395405.html |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Seems your LDFLAGS may be the culprint. Specifically this part of |
| 21 |
> ssuominen's post: |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> quote: |
| 24 |
> -Wl,-s (or plain -s) breaks Portage's strip handling, |
| 25 |
> FEATURES="nostrip", FEATURES="-nostrip". Also, toolchain packages, |
| 26 |
> exactly like glibc handles stripping in very selective way -> Some of |
| 27 |
> the installed binaries/libraries *can* be stripped, and some *cannot*. |
| 28 |
> Just forcing stripping for everything is... like I said, insane |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
Thanks for the reply |
| 31 |
What would sensible LDFLAGS be for my amd64 system |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
thanks again |
| 34 |
Paul |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ |
Archives