Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: >> Not sure that it is possible. Reason: binutils-2.17.50.0.2 don't support >> --hash-style=both and fail linking to Debian's glibc, while >> binutils-2.17.50.0.3 support --hash-style=both and work. So a "bugfix" >> is very likely to be just the addition of the GNU hash support. >> > Indeed, the 2006-07-11 CVS checkout (timezone is Asia/Yekaterinburg) > doesn't have GNU hash support and can't link anything against Debian's > glibc, while 2006-07-12 works. The only difference between them is the > addition of GNU hash.
Interesting. But it doesn't explain why it works on x86. I'll test ppc and see what happens there. If this is not a Debian-only problem then I should be able to reproduce it on x86_64 later this week. > Thus, a general solution should be created to the "ld doesn't like host > glibc" type of problem, as opposed to the gnuhash-specific issue. You already have that solution and it's called cross compilation. But if it turns out that we have to backport the hash-style stuff to 2.17 for this apparent x86_64 corner case with the current build method, then so be it. It ain't ideal but there are already *much* larger patches in LFS introduced by your good self. Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
