Greg Schafer wrote: > Not exactly. That bug report is about startfile_prefix_spec being a faulty > spec. It coincidentally highlighted the fact that GCC devs want it removed.
Yes, you're right. I didn't word it correctly. Anway, the point is made. > It's there in the current stable book and doing the job. Putting it back > in unstable now would definitely be better than what you currently have. And when it comes down to it, I guess that is really the biggest movtivation. Doing this would leave us in the same condition stable is in with the adjustment of binutils so we don't have to keep its directories around. > Personally, I don't believe in it and will never use it because: > > - the spec is faulty. It doesn't work when placed into an external file > for use by "gcc -specs=..." (luckily LFS is not using it externally). > Every other spec I've tried works properly when placed externally. > (maybe someone can fix this bug in gcc.c ?) > > - the spec has been slated for removal by GCC devs. When that will happen > (if ever) is anyone's guess. > > - nobody else in the entire world uses this spec. Google for it and see. I know. Reading through the gcc bug (and related links) alone was enough to leave me second guessing. However, I don't have a great deal of confidence in the -B method either. :/ Seeing that I'm not currently a toolchain guru (though the recent events are inclining me to dig deeper into it) I feel it's best at this point to work with what LFS knows. > - the way it's currently used by LFS is an abuse. This thing is for > *startfiles*, yet LFS uses it to find libs also. Why do you think the > extra libgcc_s.so symlink became necessary? Isn't using -B to find libraries an abuse as well? I'm trying to understand more about this in general, I'm not trying to accuse or pick fights. If you know of any good links that explain it more fully, I'd appreciate it. > - I do not buy into the argument that it should be used because CLFS uses > it. Quite frankly, IMHO CLFS is bizarre.. All the sane cross toolchain > build recipes available today do not resort to such hackery. The sane > ones all use `--with-sysroot'. But I'm getting off-topic now so I'll > save this for another forum/discussion. The fewer unecessary differences between the projects, the better, IMO. But anyway, you're right, it's not a solid argument. > Believe it or not, I've had reports from folks who place /tools on a > separate partition. It'd be more robust if you used a symlink instead. Thanks, noted. I'll look into it. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
