From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22535 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2008 20:33:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 22527 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jan 2008 20:33:18 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:33:01 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m0EKWxUn012144 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:32:59 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m0EKWx7l008999 for ; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:32:59 -0500 Received: from [172.16.57.153] (multics.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.57.153]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m0EKWxN7032688; Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:32:59 -0500 Subject: Re: [SCM] master: Add -sysroot option to fhpd. From: Stan Cox To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Frysk List In-Reply-To: <478B96A6.3090509@redhat.com> References: <20080114051518.31275.qmail@sourceware.org> <478B96A6.3090509@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:33:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1200342672.16575.112.camel@multics.rdu.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 (2.10.3-4.fc7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on 172.16.52.254 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-q1/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 > Right on; it needs to construct what looks like an installed sysroot so > that we're testing against how things will appear in a live system. Two > extra things to consider though: how to get this data installed; and now > to have it also built 32-bit. I'm on this one now. > can this be coded to just assume that there's a sysroot ("/" by default)? > > Given that the underlying Dwfl knows its sysroot, would it be both > simpler and more consistent to use that, and to do so internally? Say, that is a clever idea; I'll look into that.