Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Seriously, I don't believe in multiboot. If I can't build a 64-bit > version of a package, then I don't need it. I should be able to put > libraries in the directories I want.
Well, you are, of course, but this appears to be nothing more than
fallout from violating the assumptions of all the various other packages
-- in this case, that a 64-bit-mode link requires the .la files from
/usr/lib64. And it does, if the system follows both the sysv x86-64 ABI
(which puts ld-linux in /lib64) and the standard upstream glibc/gcc
installation (which puts libraries in {,/usr}/lib64).
But yes, constantly specifying --libdir=/usr/lib64 is a bit annoying; if
I didn't have template "build" scripts for a new package that did it for
me, and if I didn't go in and edit the configure flags most of the time
anyway, I'd look into doing something else too.
I wonder what would happen if someone proposed defaulting --libdir to
${prefix}/lib64 on 64-bit, linux-like systems in autoconf; then one of
the --build or --host flags (probably --build) could flip between the
two automatically. As long as that didn't introduce an attempt at a
cross compile when it wouldn't have done that before...
>> Alternately, I haven't tried this, but it *MIGHT* work to edit the
>> compiler_lib_search_path in your /usr/bin/libtool script (or the
>> ltmain.sh in the various packages? not 100% sure how this all fits
>> together), to look for the files in the same directory they
>> originally got installed in, i.e. /usr/lib.
>
> It would be easier to edit /usr/bin/libtool to just not output the
> warning. It's even easier to delete the .la files.
Maybe, but fixing the default source path feels more right to me.
Shrug, either way. :-)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
