| 1 |
On 09-11-2007 10:43:15 +0100, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 08:59 +0100, rabbe@×××××××.se wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Then, about the "doable" question: Is it supposed to be possible to emerge |
| 4 |
> > glibc? I gave it a shot on my Fedora Core 6 prefix setup, and it failed at |
| 5 |
> > an early stage. I can write a bug report if this should be considered a |
| 6 |
> > bug. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Can't say anything here. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I know I once got it compiled and installed. The reason I abandoned it, |
| 11 |
is that I got linking errors with undefined references to |
| 12 |
some_kind_function@GLIBC_2.5 kind of symbols, quite similar to your gcc |
| 13 |
compilation problem. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
When I did that, prefix was still in its early stage, and the ldwrapper |
| 16 |
didn't exist yet. Almost for sure no runpath directions were set, and |
| 17 |
maybe even no -L directions. Given that we have a better environment |
| 18 |
regards the linking these days, it may be worth a try again... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 23 |
Gentoo on a different level |
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
gentoo-alt@g.o mailing list |
Archives