I do have the time to give the uclibc profile in portage a good kick. I&#39;m very much into this as I&#39;m working with uclibc toolchains under the x86 mainly.<div><br></div><div>I&#39;ll make an ebuild for the new one, and test it out.<br clear="all">


<br clear="all"><br>--Jude Pereira<br>(<a href="http://judepereira.com/blog" target="_blank">http://judepereira.com/blog</a>)<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ed W <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:lists@..." target="_blank">lists@...</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">


<div>On 29/08/2011 15:23, Jude Pereira wrote:<br>
&gt; I&#39;ve been able to create stages for x86 under the uclibc profile using<br>
&gt; catalyst.<br>
&gt; I&#39;d like that they get upstream to the gentoo mirrors, so that its<br>
&gt; available publicly.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I&#39;m also willing to maintain them, I&#39;d love to be a gentoo uclibc<br>
&gt; maintainer for the x86 arch.<br>
<br>
</div>Excellent idea.<br>
<br>
I am using latest uclibc (slightly newer git release than .32).  It is<br>
so much better and easier to use than what is in portage that we<br>
desperately need to dump the current portage uclibc for all archs that<br>
support nptl + uclibc latest!  I don&#39;t think I have any local patches<br>
now to build under this uclibc version...!<br>
<br>
Additionally I have had some success enabling iconv on latest uclibc.<br>
This needs some tweaking to the uclibc src if you are building under a<br>
uclibc toolchain (it only builds correctly under a glibc toolchain, but<br>
easy to workaround). Patches are on the uclibc mailing list and I can<br>
highlight them if needed. It adds around 50KB to my build size, but also<br>
it allows git and a bunch of other ebuilds to build successfully without<br>
patching - some people may like this trade off - I suspect that the<br>
build size could be reduced with some work<br>
<br>
I have asked if someone would proxy maintain this - I don&#39;t have a whole<br>
bunch of time, but I would love to see portage get pulled up to date if<br>
someone had the time to give it a push? My vote would be for .32 to<br>
become stable (subject to normal arch signoffs) and a regular git<br>
snapshot to be tracked and keyword masked<br>
<br>
I think uclibc stages will mainly be useful to highlight that gentoo is<br>
a good build environment for embedded and to provide a working toolchain<br>
for cross compiling.  Love to see this become productionised<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Ed W<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br></div>