------- Original Message ------- On Sunday, August 7th, 2022 at 9:59 AM, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> It's a really stupid one. Basically, the tests and really any > executable you try to build fails to execute without LD_LIBRARY_PATH > set. Now obviously, that's an issue with ld and you know which package > has ld? That's right, it's binutils! > Ah! That LD_LIBRARY_PATH was needed was the clue. > In Andrew's recipe, he sneakily snarfed out binutils from inputs using > assoc-ref, but I'm using the new package style with (this-package- > input) to achieve the same thing, so I had to add binutils. But this > now shadows ld-wrapper. So we have to add ld-wrapper as well. Now > this makes me question whether the driver options are actually sane or > whether we'd have to prepend ld-wrapper to those as well. > Is the assoc-ref for binutils (implicit input?) equivalent to just using #$binutils directly? e.g. (string-append "-B" #$binutils "/bin/") with no added binutils to the inputs. Is that not a good idea? As a test, that does indeed work, everything configures, builds, and runs (only tested opening with no configuration). > WDYT, Andrew?
