| 1 |
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:03:22 +0400 |
| 2 |
Maxim Koltsov <maksbotan@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> 2012/6/17 Justin <jlec@g.o>: |
| 5 |
> > On 17.06.2012 15:23, Maxim Koltsov wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> 2012/6/17 Justin <jlec@g.o>: |
| 7 |
> >>> On 17.06.2012 14:13, Maxim Koltsov wrote: |
| 8 |
> >>>> Hi, |
| 9 |
> >>>> During prefix bootstrap i noticed that strip-flags removes -L |
| 10 |
> >>>> and -I flags from *FLAGS while these flags are essential for |
| 11 |
> >>>> prefix bootstrapping. Therefore i propose a fix for strip-flags |
| 12 |
> >>>> function to |
| 13 |
> >>> |
| 14 |
> >>> Is this really necessary? I never experienced any problems which |
| 15 |
> >>> need this when following the guides. I looks like a hack, because |
| 16 |
> >>> something else is borked. |
| 17 |
> >> |
| 18 |
> >> I've just hit binutils on OpenBSD not finding libdl.so installed in |
| 19 |
> >> $EPREFIX/usr/lib/ because of this. |
| 20 |
> >> Don't tell me that OpenBSD prefix is unsupported, i'm working on |
| 21 |
> >> getting it supported. |
| 22 |
> >> |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > I am still not convinced. libdl.so is provided by glibc, at least |
| 25 |
> > on my linux system. And glibc is one of the rare packages which |
| 26 |
> > needs to be provided by the host system instead of being installed |
| 27 |
> > in the prefix. |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > Is there something different on BSD which makes libdl.so appear |
| 30 |
> > inside the prefix? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> At least on OpenBSD dlopen() is not in libdl.so, but in ld.so itself, |
| 33 |
> so I have to install dummy libdl.so to ${EPREFIX}/usr/lib. |
| 34 |
> I think we should use Fabian's solution from the bug, if it does not |
| 35 |
> cause any unwanted consequences. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Shouldn't configure detect that no libdl is necessary? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Best regards, |
| 42 |
Michał Górny |
Archives