1 |
2012/6/17 Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o>: |
2 |
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:03:22 +0400 |
3 |
> Maxim Koltsov <maksbotan@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> 2012/6/17 Justin <jlec@g.o>: |
6 |
>> > On 17.06.2012 15:23, Maxim Koltsov wrote: |
7 |
>> >> 2012/6/17 Justin <jlec@g.o>: |
8 |
>> >>> On 17.06.2012 14:13, Maxim Koltsov wrote: |
9 |
>> >>>> Hi, |
10 |
>> >>>> During prefix bootstrap i noticed that strip-flags removes -L |
11 |
>> >>>> and -I flags from *FLAGS while these flags are essential for |
12 |
>> >>>> prefix bootstrapping. Therefore i propose a fix for strip-flags |
13 |
>> >>>> function to |
14 |
>> >>> |
15 |
>> >>> Is this really necessary? I never experienced any problems which |
16 |
>> >>> need this when following the guides. I looks like a hack, because |
17 |
>> >>> something else is borked. |
18 |
>> >> |
19 |
>> >> I've just hit binutils on OpenBSD not finding libdl.so installed in |
20 |
>> >> $EPREFIX/usr/lib/ because of this. |
21 |
>> >> Don't tell me that OpenBSD prefix is unsupported, i'm working on |
22 |
>> >> getting it supported. |
23 |
>> >> |
24 |
>> > |
25 |
>> > I am still not convinced. libdl.so is provided by glibc, at least |
26 |
>> > on my linux system. And glibc is one of the rare packages which |
27 |
>> > needs to be provided by the host system instead of being installed |
28 |
>> > in the prefix. |
29 |
>> > |
30 |
>> > Is there something different on BSD which makes libdl.so appear |
31 |
>> > inside the prefix? |
32 |
>> |
33 |
>> At least on OpenBSD dlopen() is not in libdl.so, but in ld.so itself, |
34 |
>> so I have to install dummy libdl.so to ${EPREFIX}/usr/lib. |
35 |
>> I think we should use Fabian's solution from the bug, if it does not |
36 |
>> cause any unwanted consequences. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> Shouldn't configure detect that no libdl is necessary? |
39 |
|
40 |
Should, but eclass does the bad thing anyway. |
41 |
|
42 |
> |
43 |
> -- |
44 |
> Best regards, |
45 |
> Michał Górny |