Brian Szmyd wrote:
>> Yea, when you have an unexpected ld.so. If you want to toss binaries
>> around between systems running different versions of various *libc, your
>> best bet would be to build static binaries.
>>
>
> Yea, I don't want to do that. I realized after running readelf on my binaries
> that they were expecting ld to be located in <clfs_path>/lib rather than the
> actual /lib installation point. I recompiled gcc without the specs patch and
> glibc with a prefix of "/" (and install_root as <clfs_path>) and all was
> well. Probably just a problem with me only using chapter 5 of the guide.
> thanks though!
>
Sounds about what I would do, you might want to take a look at how the
sysroot book handles toolchains. The build is still flawed in the
respect that packages like gettext & libtool try to use host libraries,
but binutils/gcc/glibc are rock solid.
_______________________________________________
Clfs-support mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cross-lfs.org/listinfo.cgi/clfs-support-cross-lfs.org
