On 02.11.21 14:22, Christian Storm wrote: > From: Christian Storm <[email protected]> > > On first build, libtool produces a proper statically linked > bg_setenv tool which by argv[0] decides whether to printenv > or setenv. > > On subsequent builds, e.g., while incrementally developing, > libtool *dynamically* links bg_setenv against libebgenv and > applies "magic" [1,2] to compensate for library paths. > This breaks the bg_setenv argv[0] logic. > > So, state explicitly that bg_setenv is to be linked statically. > > [1] > https://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Linking-executables.html#Linking-executables > [2] https://autotools.io/libtool/wrappers.html > > Signed-off-by: Christian Storm <[email protected]> > --- > Makefile.am | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am > index 3545ae2..2a5f8f8 100644 > --- a/Makefile.am > +++ b/Makefile.am > @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ bg_setenv_SOURCES = \ > tools/bg_setenv.c > > bg_setenv_CFLAGS = \ > - $(AM_CFLAGS) > + $(AM_CFLAGS) -static > > bg_setenv_LDADD = \ > -lebgenv \ >
OK, that means we are now shipping a bg_setenv with 0.9 that dynamically links against libebgenv. In 0.8, it was statically linked, right? Do you think this qualifies for a 0.9.1? Jan -- Siemens AG, T RDA IOT Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EFI Boot Guard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/efibootguard-dev/3560fa68-7d55-df4c-3547-9f8145644f3b%40siemens.com.
