Greg Schafer wrote: > Interesting. But it doesn't explain why it works on x86. I'll test ppc and > see what happens there. If this is not a Debian-only problem then I should > be able to reproduce it on x86_64 later this week. >
I'll wait for PPC results, and try to read the code of binutils in order to answer the x86-related question. >> Thus, a general solution should be created to the "ld doesn't like host >> glibc" type of problem, as opposed to the gnuhash-specific issue. >> > > You already have that solution and it's called cross compilation. But if > it turns out that we have to backport the hash-style stuff to 2.17 for > this apparent x86_64 corner case with the current build method, then so be > it. It ain't ideal but there are already *much* larger patches in LFS > introduced by your good self. > Hm. It looks like an inconsistency in your attitude to such problems. Remember, when we had the --as-needed problem from Fedora hosts, you did everything (i.e., "-B/usr/bin") in order to prevent gcc/binutils mismatch. Why do you think that the current glibc/binutils situation is different? -- Alexander E. Patrakov -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
