From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B70F71381F3 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:31:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D4CCE0AE3; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:31:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D63DDE0AE3 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:31:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.91] (dynamic-adsl-84-221-239-195.clienti.tiscali.it [84.221.239.195]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: lu_zero) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B625433E956 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:31:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51ED266A.7090400@gentoo.org> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 14:32:42 +0200 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130411 Thunderbird/17.0.5 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-soc] Gentoo on Android, Summary for 2013.6.28-7.1 References: <87mwq6mj4v.fsf@proton.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp> <51D1995A.8050707@gentoo.org> <87bo6mmhqj.fsf@proton.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp> <51D19FDF.9080004@gentoo.org> <51ED1EFC.7070607@gentoo.org> <87ppuabx4k.fsf@proton.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: <87ppuabx4k.fsf@proton.in.awa.tohoku.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 3a823d58-18c8-4c2e-8132-648052094692 X-Archives-Hash: 307ccb8cd853d36999b166cf3c305010 On 07/22/2013 02:24 PM, heroxbd wrote: > Got what you meant. I am just afraid if upstream would reject a mean to > fully override the dynamic linker for the sake of a /absolutely stable > soname/. Upstream can be difficult, supporting multiple c runtime is _quite_ problematic and requires pointless patching in too many part of the codebase nowadays =/ > An alternative: Given the similar situation in binutils, I am thinking > of another switch (like --{enable,with}-native-sysroot) to turn > --with-sysroot into a native (non-cross) version for our purpose. (GLEP > draft follows) What do you say? Worth a try, sadly you need to coordinate with upstream. Since we are nearing the midterm would be great having an interim release so people could try the current setup and get and idea easily. Probably that would help winning more support in discussing with upstream. lu