From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1P0H9T-0004t4-S6 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:06:08 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 02BB1E0C7D for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:06:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay.pcl-ipout01.plus.net (relay.pcl-ipout01.plus.net [212.159.7.99]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B1DE0C06 for ; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:12:21 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AisFAC5foExUXebj/2dsb2JhbACDG5ETjgBxtXGSM4Eigy50BJAa Received: from outmx01.plus.net ([84.93.230.227]) by relay.pcl-ipout01.plus.net with ESMTP; 27 Sep 2010 17:12:20 +0100 Received: from appjaws.plus.com ([212.159.109.207] helo=pc2.homenet) by outmx01.plus.net with esmtpa (Exim) id 1P0GJQ-00073R-4b for gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:12:20 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] glibc-2.12.1-r1 failure References: Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:13:35 +0100 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Paul Stear" Organization: appjaws Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.62 (Linux) X-Archives-Salt: 92737f2d-1cc6-4a16-aaa8-f51440dd94a9 X-Archives-Hash: 2f11fb96cb1cea97fef273ef56915577 On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:13:42 +0100, Paul Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Paul Stear > wrote: >> Hi all, >> I think I have a symbolic link problem. Any thought on how to solve this >> error. > ... >> unexpected reloc type in static binarymake[1]: *** >> [install-symbolic-link] > ... >> LDFLAGS="-Wl,--as-needed,-O1 -Wl,--enable-new-dtags -Wl,--sort-common >> -s" > > See this forum post: > > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6395405.html > > Seems your LDFLAGS may be the culprint. Specifically this part of > ssuominen's post: > > quote: > -Wl,-s (or plain -s) breaks Portage's strip handling, > FEATURES="nostrip", FEATURES="-nostrip". Also, toolchain packages, > exactly like glibc handles stripping in very selective way -> Some of > the installed binaries/libraries *can* be stripped, and some *cannot*. > Just forcing stripping for everything is... like I said, insane > Thanks for the reply What would sensible LDFLAGS be for my amd64 system thanks again Paul -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/