On 09/28/2015 08:07 AM, Hazel Russman wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 08:04:07 -0500
[email protected] wrote:
I receive [Requesting program interpreter:
/tools/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2] after running the glibc sanity check
(5.7. Glibc-2.22 LFS 7.8-rc1). The documentation indicates the
/tools/lib64/ prefix is fine, but I should see ld-linux.so.2 for the
remainder. I included the following in Binutils-2.25.1 - Pass 1.
case $(uname -m) in
x86_64) mkdir -v /tools/lib && ln -sv lib /tools/lib64 ;;
esac
/lfs/tools/lib64 is linked to lib and
/lfs/tools/lib/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 to ld-2.22.so. $LFS_TGT is
x86_64-lfs-linux-gnu.
I'm compiling 7.8 on a box running LFS 7.7. I see no errors in
binutils/gcc pass 1 or with the API headers.
If you have a 64-bit system, then that is the correct name for the linker.
Thank you, that makes sense. However, the documentation doesn't seem to
address that.
"Note that /tools/lib, or /tools/lib64 for 64-bit machines appears
as the prefix of the dynamic linker.
If the output is not shown as above or there was no output at all,
then something is wrong. Investigate and retrace the steps to find out
where the problem is and correct it. This issue must be resolved before
continuing on."
As the documentation specifies only the prefix can differ, doesn't that
imply the remainder must include ld-linux.so.2 as the dynamic linker?
If the output is not shown as above is quite specific language. Perhaps
I'm reading it incorrectly. But should there be two outputs shown, one
for 32-bit and one for 64-bit machines?
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
