| 1 |
On 07/22/2013 02:24 PM, heroxbd wrote: |
| 2 |
> Got what you meant. I am just afraid if upstream would reject a mean to |
| 3 |
> fully override the dynamic linker for the sake of a /absolutely stable |
| 4 |
> soname/. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Upstream can be difficult, supporting multiple c runtime is _quite_ |
| 7 |
problematic and requires pointless patching in too many part of the |
| 8 |
codebase nowadays =/ |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> An alternative: Given the similar situation in binutils, I am thinking |
| 11 |
> of another switch (like --{enable,with}-native-sysroot) to turn |
| 12 |
> --with-sysroot into a native (non-cross) version for our purpose. (GLEP |
| 13 |
> draft follows) What do you say? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Worth a try, sadly you need to coordinate with upstream. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Since we are nearing the midterm would be great having an interim |
| 18 |
release so people could try the current setup and get and idea easily. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Probably that would help winning more support in discussing with upstream. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
lu |
Archives