Greg Schafer wrote: > Ryan Oliver wrote: > > >> The sysroot build is "misused" in pretty much the same way the original >> native plfs toolchain was "misused". >> > > Just another data point for the record. > > Here, a senior toolchain person confirms how sysroot is meant to be used > (read the whole bug report for context): > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-binutils/2007-08/msg00110.html > > I quote: > > "You should use --prefix=/usr and install it with install_root=${sysroot}. > The whole point of the sysroot feature is that it establishes a chroot > style environment." > > We all know what sysroot is for.
All sysroot does is shift the search paths underneath the sysroot, no more, no less. If you install with prefix != to usr you need to do the same mods we do with LFS native toolchains. Bug writer had no clue (ie: the need to perform a DESTDIR install into sysroot) Come back with a proven technical reason, one that cannot also be equally applied to plfs or DIY. > Note, the "chroot style environment" that he's referring to is the > equivalent of LFS Ch 6, not Ch 5. > > I stand by my claim that you're abusing the sysroot option and setting a > very poor example of its use. > > Sidenote: Now that some toolchain devs are apparently using *native* > sysroot builds, there is a temptation to pursue a whole new build method > that bypasses most of Ch 5. However, we would most certainly lose a lot of > the advantages of the current 2-phase approach, so gut instinct tells me > this won't be viable. Obviously, ICA verification would be *critical* to > such a build method. > > See clfs sysroot for a 1 pass build. If you want one for native builds, can post it. Best Regards [R] -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
