On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 18:14 +0100, grischka wrote: > Henry Kroll wrote: > > Well, I was interested in packing this for Fedora and maybe going > > through the process of becoming a maintainer. The Fedora people contend > > that the dynamic linker is "smarter;" however, they discourage rpath. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Beware_of_Rpath > > > > The logic goes that because the library is installed in a standard > > location path (/usr/lib, /usr/lib64) an rpath is not necessary. > > Makes sense. Other questions: > CFLAGS+=-fPIC > LINK_LIBTCC=-ltcc > > 1) Why do you need to add -fPIC to general CFLAGS? Note that it is > already set for libtcc.so.1.0: > libtcc.so.1.0: CFLAGS+=-fPIC > AFAIK "position independent code" makes sense only for shared libraries. > > 2) Why do you need to add -ltcc to the linker command? The > rule to link 'tcc' > tcc$(EXESUF): tcc.o $(LIBTCC) > $(CC) -o $@ $^ $(LIBS) $(LINK_LIBTCC) > already has libtcc.so.1.0 on the command line. I noticed those details when I rebuilt in a clean environment :O Will push what I got when it builds successfully in the chroot...
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
