Tushar Teredesai wrote: > Why build something if you don't need to. ld --nostdlib -L/usr/lib > -L/lib works? It is not an undocumented switch.
No, not exactly. At least not from my tests. The -Wl,--verbose output shows that it's still finding the ld-linux.so.2 in /tools, unless you use the static ld, prepared to use /lib:/usr/lib > The main purpose of the bug was that /tools should not be modified in > any way once you are in chroot. Well, it is suggested now that a user tar up /tools and put it away at the beginning of chapter 6, before any other edits are made to it. No, it's not perfect, but it works. > I still don't understand the problem with using wrappers. They are an > elegant way of executing the compiler and linker with the switches > that we want. I don't agree with the "They are evil" statement. Yes, > if it is overused, it can cause problems. I have no proof of the difference a wrapper makes or doesn't make. On the other hand, Ryan is adament on the point that -B is not intended to be used for finding libraries in general. This is especially the case with multilib. Granted, LFS is not multilib, and with the arrival of Cross-LFS, probably never will be. But, if we use the *startfile_prefix_spec setting, as we did previously, we are more in harmony with cross-lfs and the end result is the same. Also, it's one setting in a sed and we don't need to be bothered with setting -L or -B anywhere. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
