Hi, I was wondering if why (or why not) LFS does't use sysroot for the temporary toolchain but other LFS-based projects (CLFS, etc) do.
I tried using it myself and saw odd behavior when using sysroot with a native gcc. The library search path ended up being /SYSROOT/ABSOLUTE/lib/ instead of /SYSROOT/lib when the 'lib' directory was located at /ABSOLUTE/lib. I added a 'hack' symlink "/SYSROOT/ABSOLUTE -> /" which made it work but is not nice. The header and executable search paths seemed to be correct (without modifying gcc sources). I was naievely thinking that the sysroot approach could be a lot cleaner than patching gcc (especially to handle transitioning to new version in the future) Any ideas? -Alex -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
