Re: relocating the compiler and associated tools

[Jim Tison <jtison at ntplx dot net>]

On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 06:09, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

> 
> i haven't had a chance to test run the executables yet, but in both
> cases, i got executables as output that "file" told me were SH
> binaries.  so at least that part worked (the static binary being,
> naturally, massively larger than the dynamic).
> 

I meant mv instead of cp. Try it. You probably won't like the fireworks
display you're liable to get. If you copy, the relocated binaries will
still have the original files to find and use. What you're doing by
copying is approximately equivalent to setting symlinks in /usr that
refer back to your original PREFIX. Dunno 'bout you, but I'd call that
cheating :-) <no offense>

But we're talking about building cross-compilers here -- the ultimate
purpose is to move cross-compiled executables (and/or dynamic libs) to
foreign machines of the target hw/os type. If you need to build -shared
executables, you're really in trouble when you transport that executable
to a foreign machine where your build & PREFIX paths are unknown. You
_might_ get away with statically linked executables, if you can make the
link phases work. 

BTDT. You'll hit a brick wall _somewhere_, sadly. If there's an easier
solution, I'm all ears. chroot jail (built to standard /usr, /usr/lib,
/lib paths) still sounds like the course of action with the most promise
to me. 

Peace,
--Jim--


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com