Dear List,
I see I've been anticipated.
Only a few days ago I discovered that with -pedantic set in my CFLAGS
I wasn't building libjpeg.so: the patch jpeg-6b-config_update-1.patch
deals with this problem (by patching ltmain.sh). However, it's still
getting one thing wrong. The 'configure' script still believes that we
aren't using the GNU linker if it can't find ld.so.1 . Indeed, ld.so.1
actually continues to appear in the *modified* lines of the patch! I
haven't actually tried the patch yet (yes, lazy of me), but I'm fairly
sure that it will still conclude that the linker is the (ancient) Linux
linker,
as it does when not patched.
Go on, substitute ld.so.2. You know it makes sense (even if it makes
no actual difference, which is quite possible).
Bernard Leak.
_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
