This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [rfc] dont use absolute paths in ldscripts if they arent needed

On Sunday 02 April 2006 13:12, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 01:07:30PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > when i said problems, i didnt mean binutils was
> > trying to access the wrong libraries.  i know ld will automatically
> > prepend the sysroot path when presented with an absolute path in the
> > linker script. the fact that it prepends is the problem.  we experimented
> > with building glibc with --prefix=/usr/target/ so that the install
> > wouldnt put crap in / or /usr since that would conflict with the native
> > glibc.  this would cause the ldscripts to use paths such as
> > /usr/target/lib/ which would cause ld to search for
> > /usr/target/lib/ in the sysroot
> > of /usr/target/.
> This is silly.  You're using a sysroot configured toolchain, but you're
> not putting things in the right place in the sysroot.

when i said "we experimented" i meant we originally tried that ... we arent 
using --prefix=/usr/target any longer

> A sysroot is supposed to precisely resemble the root filesystem of a
> target system.  If you have /usr/target configured as your sysroot,
> then you'd better have configured glibc for --prefix=/usr and
> installed it with install_root=/usr/target.

this is the route we were taking

> If the glibc you're building is actually supposed to search
> "/usr/target/lib" when you run its dynamic linker, then it's not
> configured for a sysroot;

this isnt really a "problem" as the glibc built on the host isnt the one that 
will be deployed ... but that's ignoring the problem

> you're trying to use the sysroot support to 
> do something different.  If I understand what you're trying to do, you
> might be able to get the right effect just by adding a
> /usr/target/usr/target -> ../.. symlink.

yes, that was one test which worked when we first started hacking with 
this ... but such symlinks are also quite ugly

> > the problem absolute paths in ldscripts
> > fixes simply doesnt not apply when libdir==slibdir, so why bother.
> You are trying to fix "absolute paths in ldscripts don't work" by
> fixing the one well-known source of such paths.  Why not configure your
> tools so that absolute paths actually work, so that they don't bite
> you from some other source?

yes and no ... the way we're cross building/installing glibc now, the patch is 
no longer "needed" ... but the paths themselves are pointless when the files 
are together

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]