This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.


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: [CT_NG] ct-ng build tries to install headers to live system


Hi,

2010/11/14 Somchai Smythe <buraphalinuxserver@gmail.com>:
> Hello again,
>
> 1. ?So is the recommended solution then to install a special old copy
> of GNU make just for ct-ng that is a version less than 3.82?
>
From what I see, it is the fast path.

> 2. ?Can I tell ct-ng to use some other name than 'make' for the make
> program, so I can install both the old make version as something like
> 'oldmake' and the 3.82 version that I use for everything else would
> keep the name 'make'? ?If so, how do I do that?
>
AFAIK, you can specify which make binary to use when you first configure ct-ng:

./configure --with-make=/path/to/make-3.81

> 3. ?Alternatively, are any of the newer glibc versions actually stable
> enough to use and can be built with make-3.82 on ct-ng? ? I chose 2.9
> since that was the highest version available on the menu, not because
> I want that particular antique version of glibc.
>
I suspect there is a dependency on EXPERIMENTAL for newer glibc. The
latest is 2.12.1.

> 4. ?If ct-ng will not be updated to support make-3.82 for glibc, then
> perhaps ct-ng could check if the default make is GNU make > 3.81, and
> if that is true (the default make is not old enough to work with ct-ng
> for building glibc), then just not list building glibc as an option,
> so nobody else will waste time trying to find a solution to this
> issue?
>
the solution to a problem is not to silent it, but to get it fixed. If
the latest stable and eventually the latest snapshot has a problem,
please go upstream and submit a bug report. But please, don't silence
it, other may encounter it and act so that it get fixed upstream. Once
that's done, either ask for the fix to be backported to older versions
or backport it yourself, linking it with the original bug and
resolution. That sure is a slower path. Alternatively, you can fix the
problem by yourself and send the patch upstream (or not...).

 - Arnaud

> JGH
>
> --
> For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
>
>

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq


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