2012/6/17 Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o>:
> 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?

Should, but eclass does the bad thing anyway.

>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny