| 1 |
On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 22:58 +0000, James Le Cuirot wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
[SNIP really good writeup, thanks :)] |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> There's also a further complication here that I forgot to mention to |
| 7 |
> mgorny. While calling configure with --with-sysroot certainly helps, |
| 8 |
> it still stumbles on a significant number of packages that do |
| 9 |
> relinking at the end of the build if elibtoolize hasn't been called. |
| 10 |
> elibtoolize has long patched ltmain.sh with ELT-patches/cross/link-ROOT |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I looked at ELT-patches/cross/link-ROOT and it has |
| 13 |
--- libltdl/config/ltmain.sh 2008-09-07 19:56:33.000000000 +0200 |
| 14 |
+++ libltdl/config/ltmain.sh.new 2009-02-15 20:37:47.000000000 +0100 |
| 15 |
@@ -5768,7 +5768,7 @@ |
| 16 |
test "$hardcode_direct_absolute" = no; then |
| 17 |
add="$libdir/$linklib" |
| 18 |
elif test "$hardcode_minus_L" = yes; then |
| 19 |
- add_dir="-L$libdir" |
| 20 |
+ add_dir="-L$ROOT/$libdir" |
| 21 |
add="-l$name" |
| 22 |
elif test "$hardcode_shlibpath_var" = yes; then |
| 23 |
case :$finalize_shlibpath: in |
| 24 |
@@ -5785,7 +5785,7 @@ |
| 25 |
fi |
| 26 |
else |
| 27 |
# We cannot seem to hardcode it, guess we'll fake it. |
| 28 |
- add_dir="-L$libdir" |
| 29 |
+ add_dir="-L$ROOT/$libdir" |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I think this should be "add_dir=-L$lt_sysroot$libdir" rather than ROOT. |
| 32 |
See also bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=521184 |
| 33 |
and since I think this is also a libool bug there is a post upstream |
| 34 |
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2015-10/msg00012.html |
| 35 |
This has not gotten any attention from upstream libtool folks. Would |
| 36 |
be great if someone more could push for such a change. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Jocke |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> when cross-compiling and this still applies to the very latest libtool. |
| 41 |
> I filed several bugs about this before realising that fixing this |
| 42 |
> globally would be better. elibtoolize doesn't require anything to be |
| 43 |
> installed and the description does say "this function should always be |
| 44 |
> safe to run" but I suppose calling it unconditionally might screw up |
| 45 |
> patching in some isolated cases. What do you think? |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Phew, I'm done. Please be gentle! :) |
| 48 |
> |
Archives