[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <em57f8394e-3ae9-4c36-9209-f1643c937abd@elzian>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 20:04:10 +0000
From: "Laurent Bercot" <ska-dietlibc@...rnet.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: [musl-cross-make] [PATCH v2] litecross: Fix system header dir
when building native toolchains
>My patch is intended to just fix this incorrect path, not to change
>the meaning of NATIVE=y. Such a change should probably involve
>coordination of Zach van Rijn and Laurent Bercot, both of whom
>distribute pre-built native toolchains (currently containing a usr ->
>. symlink). Consumers of those toolchains probably expect a
>self-contained, relocatable toolchain, since that's what they are
>currently getting.
Yes. I don't know about Zach, but what I want from the tool is indeed
for it to produce self-contained, relocatable toolchains, whether they
are cross- or native. Non-sysrooted toolchains are not very interesting
to me: they have value when you are building a distribution, but less
so when you are building entirely independently from the existing
distribution, which is often the case with musl on glibc-based distros.
Also, a sysrooted toolchain is perfectly usable as the system
toolchain - it just requires a couple symbolic links.
I 100% support fixing mcm and avoiding the need to patch the produced
toolchains, but please don't change its semantics. Relocatability and
self-containedness are where it's at.
--
Laurent
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
