Please remove paths from libc.so.

[Rob Landley]

On Saturday 30 December 2006 1:34 am, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 29 December 2006 23:41, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 December 2006 8:35 am, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 27 December 2006 04:09, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > > There's no reason to have paths in linker scripts like libc.so.  If 
you
> > > > remove the paths and just name the libraries, the linker will search
> > > > the default path
> > >
> > > this is exactly the behavior we do not want
> >
> > Why?
> 
> you're hacking around the very issue that sysroot solves
> 
> files installed into sysroot are the same exact as if they were installed 
onto 
> the end system ... you could even take the sysroot and use it as a fully 
> functional nfs root

I remember that trying to get the sucker to access any files _outside_ of its 
sysroot turned into a bit of a production at one point, but as I said it was 
several months ago I was fiddling with it.  (It didn't actually call chroot, 
but it was very much getting confused.)

> if you want to try and stick with non-sysrooted compilers, g'luck to you ...

I've now made it work.  I dug up the old uClibc wrapper script and beat on it 
until it was rewriting the command line with the paths I actually wanted it 
to use, and completely overriding all the festering internal path logic of 
gcc.

> but that doesnt belong in uclibc linker scripts

*shrug*  You're doing unnecessary extra work which I can undo fairly easily.  
But if you're going out of your way to break everything except sysroot, you 
might want to document that non-sysroot compilers aren't supported.

Although at this point, I've noticed that non-buildroot compilers aren't 
supported...

Rob
-- 
"Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but
when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery