| 1 |
Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 16:30 +0100, Ed W wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>> and readelf gives me: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [libc.so.0] |
| 7 |
>>> 0x00000001 (NEEDED) Shared library: [ld-uClibc.so.0] |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>>> Which in turn leads to the multiple line output |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>> Is no one else seeing this with a uclibc based system? Why am I special...? |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> This is more suited in https://bugs.gentoo.org |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
As per previous email, see: |
| 20 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=275725 |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I have submitted a patch there which seems safe, but not having many |
| 23 |
uclibc systems to compare I just wanted to get a sense of whether my |
| 24 |
toolchain is building things incorrectly versus actually needing this patch |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Perhaps you could kindly run "readelf -d" on some binary in your uclibc |
| 27 |
system and tell me if you have the "ld-uClibc.so" listed? If so then I |
| 28 |
think the patch is sensible and required (and likely a safe commit) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Cheers |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Ed W |
Archives