[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tinycc-devel] minor fixes pushed upstream for RPM packaging
From: |
Henry Kroll |
Subject: |
Re: [Tinycc-devel] minor fixes pushed upstream for RPM packaging |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Dec 2010 09:45:58 -0800 |
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 18:14 +0100, grischka wrote:
> Henry Kroll wrote:
> > Well, I was interested in packing this for Fedora and maybe going
> > through the process of becoming a maintainer. The Fedora people contend
> > that the dynamic linker is "smarter;" however, they discourage rpath.
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Beware_of_Rpath
> >
> > The logic goes that because the library is installed in a standard
> > location path (/usr/lib, /usr/lib64) an rpath is not necessary.
>
> Makes sense. Other questions:
> CFLAGS+=-fPIC
> LINK_LIBTCC=-ltcc
>
> 1) Why do you need to add -fPIC to general CFLAGS? Note that it is
> already set for libtcc.so.1.0:
> libtcc.so.1.0: CFLAGS+=-fPIC
> AFAIK "position independent code" makes sense only for shared libraries.
>
> 2) Why do you need to add -ltcc to the linker command? The
> rule to link 'tcc'
> tcc$(EXESUF): tcc.o $(LIBTCC)
> $(CC) -o $@ $^ $(LIBS) $(LINK_LIBTCC)
> already has libtcc.so.1.0 on the command line.
I noticed those details when I rebuilt in a clean environment :O
Will push what I got when it builds successfully in the chroot...