| 1 |
> |
| 2 |
> On 14-05-2008 14:57:30 +0200, Markus Duft wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > |
| 4 |
> > > On 14-05-2008 14:10:44 +0200, Markus Duft wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > Phew... I really should write all this down in some document... ;) |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > Sounds like it ;) |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > > Any more questions, or did I scare away everybody? |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > Not yet, but I'm still stuck on my Interix bootstrap having a messed up |
| 12 |
> > > binutils... |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Why don't you use prefix-launcher? It works... I know, having our own |
| 15 |
> > ld/as would be really cool, but that would make much work that I have |
| 16 |
> > done already void. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I don't see how that's going to solve my problem of binutils tools (as |
| 19 |
> in the ebuild) being compiled such that if you want to run any of its |
| 20 |
> tools (e.g. objdump) it traps saying it can't find |
| 21 |
> libbfd.so.some.amazingly.long.version.number. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I have really no idea, but it works here for every bootstrap. I believe (I think I mentioned this already) that the eprefix-bootstrap script sets the necessary runpaths (with CHOST queried from portageq). I think the relevant part is a function called need_prefix_env or so... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Cheers, Markus |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I'm at the stage of being able to emerge packages, but I'm left in the |
| 29 |
> dark on how you ever get a working system (with or without |
| 30 |
> prefix-launcher ... I believe I'm already "launched"). |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> -- |
| 34 |
> Fabian Groffen |
| 35 |
> Gentoo on a different level |
| 36 |
> -- |
| 37 |
> gentoo-alt@l.g.o mailing list |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-alt@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives