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 |