On 1/26/06, Jeremy Huntwork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tushar Teredesai wrote: > > Why build something if you don't need to. ld --nostdlib -L/usr/lib > > -L/lib works? It is not an undocumented switch. > > No, not exactly. At least not from my tests. The -Wl,--verbose output > shows that it's still finding the ld-linux.so.2 in /tools, unless you > use the static ld, prepared to use /lib:/usr/lib
The dynamic linker path comes from gcc's specs file. You will need to edit that or add --dynamic-linker=/lib/ld-linux.so.2 to the above flags. > > > The main purpose of the bug was that /tools should not be modified in > > any way once you are in chroot. > > Well, it is suggested now that a user tar up /tools and put it away at > the beginning of chapter 6, before any other edits are made to it. No, > it's not perfect, but it works. :) In that case there was no need to go thru all the changes. Just moving the text would have been enough. > I have no proof of the difference a wrapper makes or doesn't make. On > the other hand, Ryan is adament on the point that -B is not intended to > be used for finding libraries in general. This is especially the case > with multilib. Granted, LFS is not multilib, and with the arrival of > Cross-LFS, probably never will be. But, if we use the > *startfile_prefix_spec setting, as we did previously, we are more in > harmony with cross-lfs and the end result is the same. Also, it's one > setting in a sed and we don't need to be bothered with setting -L or -B > anywhere. I never used the startfile_prefix before so I have no idea how it affects the build. Though I remember Greg saying long time back it was not recommended by upstream developers. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
