This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
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/libc.so.6 which would cause ld to search for
> > /usr/target/lib/libc.so.6 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