2011/10/14 Mike Frysinger <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> On Friday 14 October 2011 06:11:40 Sergey Mironov wrote:
>> 2011/10/14 Mike Frysinger:
>> > On Thursday 13 October 2011 19:30:14 Sergey Mironov wrote:
>> >> 2011/10/14 Mike Frysinger:
>> >> > On Thursday 13 October 2011 15:15:40 Sergey Mironov wrote:
>> >> >> Hello. I have my arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi system which uses glibc
>> >> >> and busybox. Recently I realised that iconv program doesn't exist in
>> >> >> the tree. I've compared host's and target's glibc file lists and
>> >> >> found that arm's version doesn't install anything to
>> >> >> /usr/arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi/usr/bin. What can be the cause of
>> >> >> this? Small C program shows that iconv_open function returns error
>> >> >> code just like if there is no iconv at all. How shoud I make arm's
>> >> >> iconv work?
>> >> >
>> >> > see glibc's files/eblits/src_compile.eblit:
>> >> > is_crosscompile && sed -i '1ibuild-programs = no' config.make
>> >> >
>> >> > i imagine disabling that line will get you `iconv`
>> >> Thanks, I will try it! Am I understand correctly that iconv itself
>> >> (library, not program) is a part of glibc and it is not possible to
>> >> exclude it during the build? So despite the lack of program I should
>> >> still have fully functional library.
>> > your understanding is correct, however ........
>> > iconv() is part of glibc but it relies on all of the gconv shared libs
>> > found in /usr/$CTARGET/usr/lib/gconv/ to do its actually work. which we
>> > also incidentally delete when building the cross-compiler glibc (see
>> > src_install.eblit and look for "gconv").
>> > you aren't the first person to find this behavior undesirable, and when i
>> > implemented it, it was more of "let's save space on things i don't think
>> > anyone will use". but if people are using it, then installing these
>> > things probably makes sense.
>> Well, maybe I really want something strange. I guess, people often
>> install another, non-cross-compiled version of glibc on top of initial
>> one. I've tried to do so, but found that cross-emerge complains about
>> conflicts - it simply doesn't treat initial glibc as a package
>> installed on target. I saw 2 ways - either edit package.provided and
>> don't install new glibc or disable conflicts detection and overwrite
>> some target's /lib* and /usr/lib/* files. I've chosen first way since
>> I am afraid of getting a mess of two glibc's compiled with different
>> tools. But how do you (or other people) act in this situation?
> indeed, this is the current wonky behavior. i guess the thing to do would be
> two fold:
> - remove the disabling of tools/supplemental files so the cross-compiler
> glibc has all the same files as sys-libs/glibc
> - have crossdev automatically add a package.provided entry to the
> /usr/$CTARGET/etc/ tree for sys-libs/glibc
Ok, thank you for explanations. I'll try to copy ebuild into my
target's overlay and make neccesary modifications.
>> By the way, I also had to handcopy libstdc++.so from
>> /usr/lib/gcc/$CTARGET to /usr/$CTARGET/lib to make C++ programs work.
>> It is another thing which makes me thinking of installig full glibc on
>> top of cross-one.
> yes, the /usr/$CTARGET tree has no gcc files installed at all. in native
> installs, we've got /etc/env.d/ which adds the internal gcc paths via LDPATH
> to ld.so.conf, and then ldso at runtime finds libstdc++.so and friends. but
> gcc is not installed at all in /usr/$CTARGET. in this case, you should be
> able to emerge gcc into /usr/$CTARGET since none of the cross-compiler gcc
> files should be in there ...
Yes, looks like I was wrong, libstdc++ is actually a library from gcc,
not from glibc. Unfortunately, installing gcc on target may be
expensive in my case, since we have some image size constraints. And
we don't need compilers to be on target actually. Well, copying from
/usr/lib/gcc/$CTARGET is not too bad since it shouldn't lead to
conflicts. Maybe it also will be fine to delegate this task to
crossdev one day.