| 1 |
Hi |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Thanks for the tips. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> uclibc and hardened are current at odd with each other. Current uclibc |
| 6 |
> demands a newer gcc than what is provided in tree. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Could this be the problem also? |
| 10 |
http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2008-November/041404.html |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Not yet tested this... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> The upgrade woes of going from old uclibc to current uclibc are a little |
| 15 |
> painful till you get most of the things rebuilt. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> It might just be simpler to use the .tbz2 off the tinderbox if you are |
| 18 |
> on an x86 or ppc platform. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm on x86 - however, can you clarify exactly what you mean by the above? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Are you suggesting that I *can* stick with old gcc, just wiggle my way |
| 24 |
up using precompiled uclibc and then revert back to compiling locally? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Thanks for the reply |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Ed W |
Archives