This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Problems with using libtool dependencies in opcodes
On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 02:52:02PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2004, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 03:29:29AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> >> As soon as you configured your toolchain to install in /usr/local/lib,
> >> you're saying /usr/local is a directory that contains and/or will
> >> contain libraries for the host.
>
> > That's the most useless behavior I've ever encountered. The logical
> > corollary is that it is not possible to configure --prefix=/usr on a
> > build machine without implying that /usr/lib contains libraries for the
> > host, in other words, that it is not possible to cross-build native
> > system tools using libtool, with $build != $host, _by design_?
>
> You're right. This is a big problem. Fortunately, it's not in the
> design, only in the implementation.
>
> Ideally, libtool should not tack on run-time -L flags when linking
> with a library that is yet to be installed. Unfortunately, this is
> quite difficult to implement. Patches are most definitely welcome.
Hmm.
> > Let's try this from the other end then. I want binutils installed on
> > my target in /usr. I want to build it on a $build != $host system.
> > How would you recommend configuring it?
>
> I'd configure it for a different prefix, and then take advantage of
> relocatability of the tree to get it to run on /usr/local. Yuck.
I don't believe it will search the correct system library directories
if we do that.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer