[gentoo-dev] [RFC]flag-o-matic.eclass strip-flags change to support prefix
Hi,
During prefix bootstrap i noticed that strip-flags removes -L and -I
flags from *FLAGS while these flags are essential for prefix
bootstrapping. Therefore i propose a fix for strip-flags function to
make it preserve prefix-related flags. I have attached a patch, please
review it. It works for me, but I'm unsure how it will work with
spaces in ${EPREFIX}
Thanks,
Maxim.
flag-o-matic.patch
Description: Binary data
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]flag-o-matic.eclass strip-flags change to support prefix
On 17.06.2012 14:13, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> Hi,
> During prefix bootstrap i noticed that strip-flags removes -L and -I
> flags from *FLAGS while these flags are essential for prefix
> bootstrapping. Therefore i propose a fix for strip-flags function to
Is this really necessary? I never experienced any problems which need
this when following the guides. I looks like a hack, because something
else is borked.
> make it preserve prefix-related flags. I have attached a patch, please
> review it. It works for me, but I'm unsure how it will work with
> spaces in ${EPREFIX}
Why not use "use prefix" instead of checking for the variable?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]flag-o-matic.eclass strip-flags change to support prefix
2012/6/17 Justin :
> On 17.06.2012 14:13, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
>> Hi,
>> During prefix bootstrap i noticed that strip-flags removes -L and -I
>> flags from *FLAGS while these flags are essential for prefix
>> bootstrapping. Therefore i propose a fix for strip-flags function to
>
> Is this really necessary? I never experienced any problems which need
> this when following the guides. I looks like a hack, because something
> else is borked.
I've just hit binutils on OpenBSD not finding libdl.so installed in
$EPREFIX/usr/lib/ because of this.
Don't tell me that OpenBSD prefix is unsupported, i'm working on
getting it supported.
>> make it preserve prefix-related flags. I have attached a patch, please
>> review it. It works for me, but I'm unsure how it will work with
>> spaces in ${EPREFIX}
>
> Why not use "use prefix" instead of checking for the variable?
>
>
I didn't know about prefix use flag. I attach the fixed patch.
flag-o-matic.patch
Description: Binary data
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]flag-o-matic.eclass strip-flags change to support prefix
2012/6/17 Richard Yao : > On 06/17/2012 09:23 AM, Maxim Koltsov wrote: >> Don't tell me that OpenBSD prefix is unsupported, i'm working on >> getting it supported. > > OpenBSD is listed on the platform matrix, but it has lacked a maintainer > for quite some time: > > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/ > > I am happy to see that you are working on this. If you have questions > about prefix, feel free to ping me in IRC. :) Gentoo/OpenBSD was listed in my gentooRoles since the beginning, but i had no time for it until this summer :) Thank's for you offer, i will ping you if needed.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]flag-o-matic.eclass strip-flags change to support prefix
On 17.06.2012 15:23, Maxim Koltsov wrote: > 2012/6/17 Justin : >> On 17.06.2012 14:13, Maxim Koltsov wrote: >>> Hi, >>> During prefix bootstrap i noticed that strip-flags removes -L and -I >>> flags from *FLAGS while these flags are essential for prefix >>> bootstrapping. Therefore i propose a fix for strip-flags function to >> >> Is this really necessary? I never experienced any problems which need >> this when following the guides. I looks like a hack, because something >> else is borked. > > I've just hit binutils on OpenBSD not finding libdl.so installed in > $EPREFIX/usr/lib/ because of this. > Don't tell me that OpenBSD prefix is unsupported, i'm working on > getting it supported. > I am still not convinced. libdl.so is provided by glibc, at least on my linux system. And glibc is one of the rare packages which needs to be provided by the host system instead of being installed in the prefix. Is there something different on BSD which makes libdl.so appear inside the prefix? justin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]flag-o-matic.eclass strip-flags change to support prefix
2012/6/17 Justin :
> On 17.06.2012 15:23, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
>> 2012/6/17 Justin :
>>> On 17.06.2012 14:13, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
Hi,
During prefix bootstrap i noticed that strip-flags removes -L and -I
flags from *FLAGS while these flags are essential for prefix
bootstrapping. Therefore i propose a fix for strip-flags function to
>>>
>>> Is this really necessary? I never experienced any problems which need
>>> this when following the guides. I looks like a hack, because something
>>> else is borked.
>>
>> I've just hit binutils on OpenBSD not finding libdl.so installed in
>> $EPREFIX/usr/lib/ because of this.
>> Don't tell me that OpenBSD prefix is unsupported, i'm working on
>> getting it supported.
>>
>
> I am still not convinced. libdl.so is provided by glibc, at least on my
> linux system. And glibc is one of the rare packages which needs to be
> provided by the host system instead of being installed in the prefix.
>
> Is there something different on BSD which makes libdl.so appear inside
> the prefix?
At least on OpenBSD dlopen() is not in libdl.so, but in ld.so itself,
so I have to install dummy libdl.so to ${EPREFIX}/usr/lib.
I think we should use Fabian's solution from the bug, if it does not
cause any unwanted consequences.
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]flag-o-matic.eclass strip-flags change to support prefix
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:03:22 +0400
Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> 2012/6/17 Justin :
> > On 17.06.2012 15:23, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> >> 2012/6/17 Justin :
> >>> On 17.06.2012 14:13, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
> Hi,
> During prefix bootstrap i noticed that strip-flags removes -L
> and -I flags from *FLAGS while these flags are essential for
> prefix bootstrapping. Therefore i propose a fix for strip-flags
> function to
> >>>
> >>> Is this really necessary? I never experienced any problems which
> >>> need this when following the guides. I looks like a hack, because
> >>> something else is borked.
> >>
> >> I've just hit binutils on OpenBSD not finding libdl.so installed in
> >> $EPREFIX/usr/lib/ because of this.
> >> Don't tell me that OpenBSD prefix is unsupported, i'm working on
> >> getting it supported.
> >>
> >
> > I am still not convinced. libdl.so is provided by glibc, at least
> > on my linux system. And glibc is one of the rare packages which
> > needs to be provided by the host system instead of being installed
> > in the prefix.
> >
> > Is there something different on BSD which makes libdl.so appear
> > inside the prefix?
>
> At least on OpenBSD dlopen() is not in libdl.so, but in ld.so itself,
> so I have to install dummy libdl.so to ${EPREFIX}/usr/lib.
> I think we should use Fabian's solution from the bug, if it does not
> cause any unwanted consequences.
Shouldn't configure detect that no libdl is necessary?
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC]flag-o-matic.eclass strip-flags change to support prefix
2012/6/17 Michał Górny :
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 19:03:22 +0400
> Maxim Koltsov wrote:
>
>> 2012/6/17 Justin :
>> > On 17.06.2012 15:23, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
>> >> 2012/6/17 Justin :
>> >>> On 17.06.2012 14:13, Maxim Koltsov wrote:
>> Hi,
>> During prefix bootstrap i noticed that strip-flags removes -L
>> and -I flags from *FLAGS while these flags are essential for
>> prefix bootstrapping. Therefore i propose a fix for strip-flags
>> function to
>> >>>
>> >>> Is this really necessary? I never experienced any problems which
>> >>> need this when following the guides. I looks like a hack, because
>> >>> something else is borked.
>> >>
>> >> I've just hit binutils on OpenBSD not finding libdl.so installed in
>> >> $EPREFIX/usr/lib/ because of this.
>> >> Don't tell me that OpenBSD prefix is unsupported, i'm working on
>> >> getting it supported.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I am still not convinced. libdl.so is provided by glibc, at least
>> > on my linux system. And glibc is one of the rare packages which
>> > needs to be provided by the host system instead of being installed
>> > in the prefix.
>> >
>> > Is there something different on BSD which makes libdl.so appear
>> > inside the prefix?
>>
>> At least on OpenBSD dlopen() is not in libdl.so, but in ld.so itself,
>> so I have to install dummy libdl.so to ${EPREFIX}/usr/lib.
>> I think we should use Fabian's solution from the bug, if it does not
>> cause any unwanted consequences.
>
> Shouldn't configure detect that no libdl is necessary?
Should, but eclass does the bad thing anyway.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
