On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 5:14 PM Matías Fonzo <selk@dragora.org> wrote:
El 2022-06-06 11:43, DustDFG escribió:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 3:04 PM DustDFG <dfgdust@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> It seems to me that gcc has linker option -rpath...
>
> Ok. I didn't think -rpath won't have sense.
That linker option is for ld(1).
> First of all, I want to say that I understand why we need tmp system
> but I can't understand where it depends on something that we can't
> pack like darkcrusade.
>
> After processing stage 1 we get tmp system that depends on itself
> only. Yes, we need host system to run it (with chroot) but we can move
> it to another system. It is self-contained like darkcrusade compilers.
> Where am I wrong?
It is not as per se as darkcrusade, because the purpose differs, but
if
it is true that it tries to be self-contained; this could change, if
Binutils (for example) introduces something that needs to be dynamic
instead of static, by which I mean that up to here or so far the
temporal system is built as static. In this sense, I see darkcrusade
as
more independent.
I have one thought about it. At the build time the components of tmp
system gets hard coded paths /tools/...
We can run these programs from the chroot and we do it from chroot.
When we are in chroot all absolute
paths of links in filesystem and hard coded paths from the ELF files
perceived by the chroot as relative for
chroot root so we get the tmp system it self-contained after build. If
I am right, we can delete the /tools symlink
from the host system after building tmp system and pack tmp system.