| 1 |
On 22 Jun 2004, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 13:47, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: |
| 4 |
> > On 22 Jun 2004, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > > > - uclibc should be a cvs version and not 0.9.26, else you'll have binary |
| 7 |
> > > > compatibility issues |
| 8 |
> > > Sure we can do that. Does 0.9.26.YYYYMMDD work fine for this? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > do you mean, we should call it like this? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I was asking for your input on if we should call it that way if it's |
| 13 |
> going to break bin compat problems. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Well, does some else use uclibc in gentoo land (for building smaller |
| 16 |
binaries for ex?). I think not, and than the name of our first "baby" is |
| 17 |
not so important ;) |
| 18 |
with your naming it would be more conformant to glibc... |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
apropo, what about moving uclibc to sys-libs? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > > > 5. gcc-3.3.4 won't be supported (at least by me) until it gets a branch |
| 24 |
> > > > update including the pie infrastructure (only 3.4.0 has it), or someone |
| 25 |
> > > > backports/forwardports it. |
| 26 |
> > > ok we can add the patch to 3.3.3-r6 |
| 27 |
> > > Anything else pending for that gcc? Like the below #6 |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > the stuff already added to 3.3.4 (you have sent an uclibc.patch) |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> > would you accept the uclibc patches like I have done it for gcc-3.4.0? |
| 33 |
> > only stuff w/o autoconf results, running autoconf from ebuild? It is also |
| 34 |
> > not critical (as mentioned in 3.4.0 ebuild) for use build, because we do |
| 35 |
> > not build at that time libstdc++ , and only this is needing autoconf. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> I've not looked at any of the 3.4.x stuff yet. Might try to do later.. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
look into the ebuild, where I first copy files from locale/gnu to |
| 40 |
locale/uclibc and os/gnu-linux to os/uclibc and patch them later |
| 41 |
this allows me to track the changes in mainline and have smaller patches |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
What do you think of starting uclibc only w/ the latest ~arch packages |
| 44 |
(it's a trouble, if we patch the stable ebuilds, all the newer have to be |
| 45 |
patched too, else the newer ones won't have the uclibc support in), it |
| 46 |
already happened for openssl that the uclibc support was not added to the |
| 47 |
newer ebuild. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
The only problem I see w/ ~arch, that it can't be defined in the profile |
| 50 |
in ACCEPT_KEYWORDS |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Peter |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
-- |
| 56 |
gentoo-embedded@g.o mailing list |
Archives