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.