build.3_rebuild
Any other LD_?? env variables I would need to consider?
Also anyone have any opinions or caveats I should take into account?
Thanks,
Stefan
--
Stefan Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
ig -p" to gain a list of all the libraries, put
them in a hash table and then use scanelf.
All seems good,
Stefan
--
Stefan Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
cribed as changing API between minor
revisions of libraries. Will think a bit more.
Stefan
--
Stefan Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Stefan Jones wrote:
So I have started making a small C program which does the
"Checking dynamic linking consistency..." part of the revdep-rebuild
program (I think this the the most time intensive part).
This program can then be called by the script.
So far all I see the program nee
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 17:18 +0900, Georgi Georgiev wrote:
> On x86-64 the native ELFs do not use ld-linux.so.2, but
> ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 instead.
Okey, thanks, using /usr/include/gnu/lib-names.h would soon sort out
that problem at compile time!
Stefan
--
Stefan Jones <[EMAIL
st goes though using both
dynamic linkers and sees which one works. This could be done for amd64 I
suppose.
But first I have an idea to only use scanelf (but that may have issues
with 32/64 combined userspaces) which I would want to implement.
--
Stefan Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
gentoo-de
read in the available libraries and there
dependencies you need to keep track of which type they are.
Anyway, the -i flag to scanelf fixes that and other issues, just group
all the data from scanelf by interpreter (so have multiple hashes, one
for each interp).
Stefan
--
Stefan Jones <[EMAIL PR
Phil Richards wrote:
| ~ # emerge -puv --newuse gnome
|
| These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
|
| Calculating dependencies \
| !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy "sys-apps/pmount" have been masked.
| !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your reque
Hi all,
I am just wondering about people's option about making a new category,
called something like dev-xmingw or similar.
At the moment we have in portage:
dev-util/xmingw-binutils dev-util/xmingw-runtime
dev-util/xmingw-gcc dev-util/xmingw-w32api
Which gives a usable W32 toolchain
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 13 October 2005 12:25 pm, Stefan Jones wrote:
dev-util/xmingw-binutils dev-util/xmingw-runtime
dev-util/xmingw-gcc dev-util/xmingw-w32api
i'd prefer to see these moved into the normal binutils/gcc ebuilds myself
I do not think that
Mike Frysinger wrote:
glanced in the ebuilds and they dont look too bad to me ... this is how we do
avr after all ... we punted the avr gcc/binutils ebuilds and now people have
to `emerge crossdev && crossdev avr`
Ok, many thanks Mike for the input.
I guess I better get on with it!
Stefan
11 matches
Mail list logo
