1 |
On 29/08/2011 15:23, Jude Pereira wrote: |
2 |
> I've been able to create stages for x86 under the uclibc profile using |
3 |
> catalyst. |
4 |
> I'd like that they get upstream to the gentoo mirrors, so that its |
5 |
> available publicly. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I'm also willing to maintain them, I'd love to be a gentoo uclibc |
8 |
> maintainer for the x86 arch. |
9 |
|
10 |
Excellent idea. |
11 |
|
12 |
I am using latest uclibc (slightly newer git release than .32). It is |
13 |
so much better and easier to use than what is in portage that we |
14 |
desperately need to dump the current portage uclibc for all archs that |
15 |
support nptl + uclibc latest! I don't think I have any local patches |
16 |
now to build under this uclibc version...! |
17 |
|
18 |
Additionally I have had some success enabling iconv on latest uclibc. |
19 |
This needs some tweaking to the uclibc src if you are building under a |
20 |
uclibc toolchain (it only builds correctly under a glibc toolchain, but |
21 |
easy to workaround). Patches are on the uclibc mailing list and I can |
22 |
highlight them if needed. It adds around 50KB to my build size, but also |
23 |
it allows git and a bunch of other ebuilds to build successfully without |
24 |
patching - some people may like this trade off - I suspect that the |
25 |
build size could be reduced with some work |
26 |
|
27 |
I have asked if someone would proxy maintain this - I don't have a whole |
28 |
bunch of time, but I would love to see portage get pulled up to date if |
29 |
someone had the time to give it a push? My vote would be for .32 to |
30 |
become stable (subject to normal arch signoffs) and a regular git |
31 |
snapshot to be tracked and keyword masked |
32 |
|
33 |
I think uclibc stages will mainly be useful to highlight that gentoo is |
34 |
a good build environment for embedded and to provide a working toolchain |
35 |
for cross compiling. Love to see this become productionised |
36 |
|
37 |
Cheers |
38 |
|
39 |
Ed W |