[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:29:52 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Make
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 09:10:23PM +0200, nicolas@...lier-web.com wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 16:56:18 -0400, Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 03:03:09PM +0200, nicolas@...lier-web.com wrote:
> >> But make depends on ld-linux.so.2 ans on librt.so.1 which are not
> >> provided
> >> by musl..
> >
> > Actually maybe I misunderstood - are you trying to use a glibc-linked
> > "make" in a chroot that only has musl? If so, it won't work. You could
> > instead static-link all your glibc programs (so they'll work in the
> > chroot) then replace them with musl-linked ones as soon as you can..
> >
> > Rich
>
> Hmm,
> Okay, thanks for these explanations :)
> I tried something, i began to try to use the gcc wrapper to link make to
> musl,
> but i had some errors : some headers were missing (ar.h / sys/cdefs.h)
I'm doubtful that make was trying to include sys/cdefs.h. I certainly
never ran into this issue when building it. It may try ar.h, but
configure should really be detecting the presence or absence of these.
Are you trying to use a make source tree that was already configured
for glibc?
> So I tried to use the system's headers (Archlinux) but the compilation
> failed. (copy to /usr/local/musl/include)
This is definitely wrong, in general. If a program is trying to
include a header that doesn't exist, the first thing you try should be
just removing the #include line. :-)
Rich
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.
