Baho Utot wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 03:10 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Baho Utot wrote:
>>
>>> I only thing I had a problem on was udev in which I had to add
>>> -ludev-local.a to LDFLAGS.
>> Can you go into detail about why you found this needed.
>> build/udev-local.a is supposed to be included in executables directly as
>> an archive, not searched as a library.
> What happened is that gcc failed to link as it did not find the static
> lib so I added that to the LDFLAGS and it then compiled and linked.
> That is all the info I have on this at this time. It is as I remember
> it...Sorry
>
> Since I am going to rebuild using my scripts to test them before
> commiting them to github I will remove the LDFLAGS
> and if it fails I can then forward the build.log for it so you can
> examine it.
Yes, I'd appreciate that. Remember that udev-local.a is not supposed to
be linked against. It is specified explicitly. For example:
COMMON_LIB = udev-local.a
build/udevd: ...
gcc build/udevd.o $(UDEVD_OBJS) -o $@ $(LDFLAGS2) \
build/udev-local.a build/$(COMMON_LIB)
Oops. That's repetitive, but it shouldn't make any difference.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
