1 |
Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote on 2012/03/19 01:51:53: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On Sunday 18 March 2012 14:53:44 Joakim Tjernlund wrote: |
4 |
> > What bugs me is that one can generally use /usr/$CTARGET as your root fs on |
5 |
> > your favourite embedded target. Doing so will loose libgcc_s.so as there |
6 |
> > isn't one installed. Having to install gcc into /usr/$CTARGET just to get |
7 |
> > libgcc_s is a bit much. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> why does this actually matter ? as noted, this hack is merely there to |
10 |
> support a split /usr setup. if you're using /usr/$CTARGET as your rootfs, |
11 |
> then you aren't going to have a split /usr, and thus the lib copy is |
12 |
> unnecessary. |
13 |
|
14 |
I don't quite understand. If I copy /usr/$CTARGET to my target board |
15 |
as rootfs there will be no libgcc on my target and NPTL needs it. |
16 |
|
17 |
> |
18 |
> > Also, would it not be better if glibc showed up in |
19 |
> > export ROOT=/usr/${CTARGET} PKGDIR=${PORTDIR}/pkgs/${CTARGET}/pkgs |
20 |
> > quickpkg `qlist -IC` instead of |
21 |
> > export ROOT=/ PKGDIR=${PORTDIR}/pkgs/${CTARGET}/cross-tools quickpkg |
22 |
> > `qlist -IC cross-${CTARGET}` ? |
23 |
> |
24 |
> no. cross-${CTARGET}/glibc is a cross-compiler glibc, not a native one. yes, |
25 |
> you can run it through a script to move things around so that it'd basically |
26 |
> have the same install as a native glibc, but the existing one is not. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> it might be useful to have crossdev automatically inject glibc into |
29 |
> package.provided for /usr/$CTARGET since attempting to install a native one in |
30 |
> there will hit conflicts. |
31 |
|
32 |
hmm, I always viewed glibc under /usr/$CTARGET as a native target glibc which |
33 |
could be copied to the target directly, but now you say it is not? |
34 |
|
35 |
So I should continue building glibc under my own tree (that is what I have been doing |
36 |
but I figured I could optimize away that step)? |
37 |
|
38 |
Jocke |