Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > I'll wait for PPC results, and try to read the code of binutils in order > to answer the x86-related question.
ppc works. > Hm. It looks like an inconsistency in your attitude to such problems. Huh? WTF does my attitude have to do with anything? Got some sort of axe to grind Alex? Dunno what your problem is dude, but I'm just trying to keep the build working and solve problems as they turn up. > Remember, when we had the --as-needed problem from Fedora hosts, you did > everything (i.e., "-B/usr/bin") in order to prevent gcc/binutils > mismatch. Why do you think that the current glibc/binutils situation is > different? The most obvious difference is that the --as-needed thing highlighted a blatant problem with the build method. We were just lucky it worked up to that point. This current thing is not so clear cut. Another important difference is that GCC and Binutils are *much* more tightly coupled than any linker/libc scenario. That, and the fact the hash-style stuff was promoted as being compatible with older setups. Bottom line is I'm yet to be convinced this "ld doesn't like host glibc" thing is an issue for the build method as it appears to be an x86_64-only corner case. We already know a patch will resolve your problem, and we also know FSF binutils-2.18 is around the corner. But like I keep on saying, if you don't like the current build method you don't have to use it. Feel free to cross compile (and stop trolling). 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
