[lfs-support] Should the man page names have the triplet as a prefix?

Ken Moffat zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com
Tue Jul 10 10:33:32 PDT 2018

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 10:53:37AM -0400, Alan Corey wrote:
> Like
> aarch64-lfs-linux-gnu-as.1
> or did I screw up again?

For (pseudo) cross-compiling (i.e. pass 1), that is ok.

> In  /mnt/lfs/tools/bin I have a  set of executables with names like
> aarch64-lfs-linux-gnu-as and in
> /mnt/lfs/tools/aarch64-lfs-linux-gnu/bin there's another set with
> normal names.  Neither are symlinks to the other.
Use ls -i : they should be hardlinks to the same inode.

> I just finished /lfs/chapter05/binutils-pass1.html  I didn't try very
> hard to figure out what
> case $(uname -m) in
>   x86_64) mkdir -v /tools/lib && ln -sv lib /tools/lib64 ;;
> esac
> Is for because I'm not an x86_64 user.  Should I have done something
> similar for aarch64?  It links something, that's all I know.

It all depends on the expected linker and library directories.  For
x86_64 the initial expectation was multilib, so 64-bit libraries and
their linker are in {$PREFIX,}/lib64 - on LFS we do not support
multilib, everything can happily live in /lib with the symlink and
other step(s) shown for x86_64.

But my google-fu doesn't let me find out what the expected
directory/linker is (searching for linker got me to ld scripts and
information from gcc on the two -mabi variants for 32bit, 64bit,
searching for loader got me information on boot images).

So, I think it is VERY likely that you need the lib64 symlinks.  But
if you get to glibc in chapter 6 I have no idea what the equivalent
of ld-linux should be.

Ah!  Searching for aarch64 ld-linux got hits for
ld-linux-aarch64.so.1 so that is probably the correct name,

Confirmatory details at https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/80431/

              Keyboard not found, Press F1 to continue

More information about the lfs-support mailing list