> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 17:04:38 -0600
> From: Bruce Dubbs <bruce.du...@gmail.com>
> To: LFS Developers Mailinglist <lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org>
> Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] gcc pass 1/2 instructions re mpfr/gmp/mpc.
>
> Pierre Labastie wrote:
> > Le 01/03/2014 23:31, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> >> Pierre Labastie wrote:
> >>> Le 01/03/2014 21:14, Bruce Dubbs a écrit :
> >>>> Pierre Labastie wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> It sounds like we need to add a check for libgmp on the host. Perhaps
> >>>>>> libmpfr and libmpc also.
> >>>>
> >>>>> It is the .la files, which fire the issue. I could reproduce the error
> >>>>> with
> >>>>> lfs-7.5-rc1 as the host, by removing libgmp.la.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Actually, neither Debian nor Arch provide those .la files. I have not
> >>>>> checked
> >>>>> Fedora yet.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am not sure what should be done. If users accept to install
> >>>>> libgmp-dev,
> >>>>> libmpfr-dev, libmpc-dev on their host, the easiest would be to
> >>>>> completely
> >>>>> remove the build of those packages for gcc-pass1. I'll try that. This
> >>>>> would
> >>>>> imply that the host requirement be augmented with both libraries _and_
> >>>>> headers
> >>>>> checks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Otherwise, maybe just a note telling to remove the .la files (completely
> >>>>> removing them gives the cleanest build), at least for the course of the
> >>>>> build?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, on my system I have /usr/lib/libmpfr.la which contains
> >>>> dependency_libs=' /usr/lib/libgmp.la'.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we add the following to the host system requirements, would that be
> >>>> enough?
> >>>>
> >>>> [ -e /usr/lib/libmpfr.la ] && [ ! -e /usr/lib/libgmp.la ] &&
> >>>> echo "libgmp is missing"
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm going to hold off releasing 7.5 until we get this settled.
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Bruce
> >>>>
> >>> I think it is the idea of the fix, except that the libs may be in
> >>> /usr/lib64
> >>> (as in Slackware64). The message should be changed though, since libgmp.so
> >>> might be installed without libgmp.la. Do not know exactly what to say:
> >>> "please
> >>> install a package with libgmp.la, or remove libmpfr.la" (too long...)
> >>
> >> Hmm. How about:
> >>
> >> if [ $(ls /usr/lib*/lib{mpfr,gmp,mpc}.so|wc -l) != 3 ]; then
> >> echo one of lib{mpfr,gmp,mpc}.so is missing
> >> fi
> >>
This would give a false-negatve on e.g. host-os multilib slackware - there's
a '/usr/lib/libmpc.so' as well as the three 'usual suspects'
(i.e. /usr/lib64/lib{mpfr,gmp,mpc}.so) in /usr/lib64 .
The test - if using that approach - would really need to do (loop across)
each of mpfr/mpc/gmp separately, and check that iindivid value is e.g. '>=1'
&& '<=2' .
akh
> >> -- Bruce
> >>
> >
> > We have to test .la files... What about:
> > case "/usr/lib*/libmpfr.la,/usr/lib*/libgmp.la" in
> > *a,) echo libgmp.la is missing ;;
> > esac
>
> Some users delete .la files. If the .so files are present, then it
> shouldn't matter if the .la files are there or not.
>
> -- Bruce
>
> --
>
--
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
