Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 17:51:17 -0400
From: Rich Felker <>
Subject: Re: Re: [musl-cross-make] [PATCH v2] litecross: Fix system
 header dir when building native toolchains

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:04:10PM +0000, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> >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.

Would you be happy with TARGET=HOST=... giving this behavior while
NATIVE=y additionally gives a real native compiler (that uses the
existing library ecosystem)? Or should I make a new name for the


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.