Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alt

From: Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
To: gentoo-alt@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alt] [prefix] elibc on linux
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 20:16:16
Message-Id: 20070504201604.GL885@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-alt] [prefix] keywordings for x86 linux by Michael Haubenwallner
On 18-04-2007 14:21:30 +0200, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> <discussion on ELIBC="linux"> > > > > > > IMO the easiest way is to say ELIBC="linux" - I've already > > > empty-remerged system using this profile. > > > > > > Maybe virtual/libiconv could avoid a dependency on dev-libs/libiconv for > > > elibc_linux, but that's just an optimization. > > > > Why avoid? If you don't want to know about the installed glibc, you > > need libiconv if you do iconv stuff, right? > > I treat this as elibc_linux++. > > Some more questions to think of when deciding to use GNU libiconv on > linux (if answer='yes' then I'd say elibc_linux++): > > Does uclibc lack (good) libiconv ? > Are there other libc's possible for linux than glibc and uclibc ? > Are there old glibc's around with bad libiconv implementations ? > > If we do not use elibc_linux, and uclibc lacks libiconv, then maybe we > need to know of elibc_uclibc too in prefix...
I don't know much (if anything) about libcs. And I don't feel a direct desire to learn about it now either. So unless someone feels like experimenting here, I'm out of ideas.
> > </discussion on ELIBC="linux">
-- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- gentoo-alt@g.o mailing list