tinycc-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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...




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]