Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: maksbotan@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]flag-o-matic.eclass strip-flags change to support prefix
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 15:48:48
Message-Id: 20120617174828.4c2ebcea@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]flag-o-matic.eclass strip-flags change to support prefix by Maxim Koltsov
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:03:22 +0400
Maxim Koltsov <maksbotan@g.o> wrote:

> 2012/6/17 Justin <jlec@g.o>: > > On 17.06.2012 15:23, Maxim Koltsov wrote: > >> 2012/6/17 Justin <jlec@g.o>: > >>> On 17.06.2012 14:13, Maxim Koltsov wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> During prefix bootstrap i noticed that strip-flags removes -L > >>>> and -I flags from *FLAGS while these flags are essential for > >>>> prefix bootstrapping. Therefore i propose a fix for strip-flags > >>>> function to > >>> > >>> Is this really necessary? I never experienced any problems which > >>> need this when following the guides. I looks like a hack, because > >>> something else is borked. > >> > >> I've just hit binutils on OpenBSD not finding libdl.so installed in > >> $EPREFIX/usr/lib/ because of this. > >> Don't tell me that OpenBSD prefix is unsupported, i'm working on > >> getting it supported. > >> > > > > I am still not convinced. libdl.so is provided by glibc, at least > > on my linux system. And glibc is one of the rare packages which > > needs to be provided by the host system instead of being installed > > in the prefix. > > > > Is there something different on BSD which makes libdl.so appear > > inside the prefix? > > At least on OpenBSD dlopen() is not in libdl.so, but in ld.so itself, > so I have to install dummy libdl.so to ${EPREFIX}/usr/lib. > I think we should use Fabian's solution from the bug, if it does not > cause any unwanted consequences.
Shouldn't configure detect that no libdl is necessary? -- Best regards, Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies