Re: [gentoo-embedded] Re: [gentoo-hardened] Re: uclibc based system and some others

[Ned Ludd]

On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 17:27, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2004, Ned Ludd wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2004-06-22 at 13:47, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> > > On 22 Jun 2004, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > >
> > > > > - uclibc should be a cvs version and not 0.9.26, else you'll have binary
> > > > > compatibility issues
> > > > Sure we can do that. Does 0.9.26.YYYYMMDD work fine for this?
> > >
> > > do you mean, we should call it like this?
> >
> > I was asking for your input on if we should call it that way if it's
> > going to break bin compat problems.
>
> Well, does some else use uclibc in gentoo land (for building smaller
> binaries for ex?). I think not, and than the name of our first "baby" is
> not so important ;)
> with your naming it would be more conformant to glibc...
>


> apropo, what about moving uclibc to sys-libs?
That's been in the back of my minds for many months. 
Short answer is. as soon as it can be used as a sys-lib then I/we will
move it.



>
> > >
> > > > > 5. gcc-3.3.4 won't be supported (at least by me) until it gets a branch
> > > > > update including the pie infrastructure (only 3.4.0 has it), or someone
> > > > > backports/forwardports it.
> > > > ok we can add the patch to 3.3.3-r6
> > > > Anything else pending for that gcc? Like the below #6
> > >
> > > the stuff already added to 3.3.4 (you have sent an uclibc.patch)
> >
> >
> > > would you accept the uclibc patches like I have done it for gcc-3.4.0?
> > > only stuff w/o autoconf results, running autoconf from ebuild? It is also
> > > not critical (as mentioned in 3.4.0 ebuild) for use build, because we do
> > > not build at that time libstdc++ , and only this is needing autoconf.
> >
> > I've not looked at any of the 3.4.x stuff yet. Might try to do later..
>
> look into the ebuild, where I first copy files from locale/gnu to
> locale/uclibc and os/gnu-linux to os/uclibc and patch them later
> this allows me to track the changes in mainline and have smaller patches
>
> What do you think of starting uclibc only w/ the latest ~arch packages
> (it's a trouble, if we patch the stable ebuilds, all the newer have to be
> patched too, else the newer ones won't have the uclibc support in), it
> already happened for openssl that the uclibc support was not added to the
> newer ebuild.
>
> The only problem I see w/ ~arch, that it can't be defined in the profile
> in ACCEPT_KEYWORDS
It's a pretty standard thing for developers to run ~x86 (I do..) I'd
rather start with ~arch for * then move it back to stable or push for
said pkg to go stable after it's been tested etc..


>
> Peter
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded,toolchain) Developer