| 1 |
I do have the time to give the uclibc profile in portage a good kick. I'm |
| 2 |
very much into this as I'm working with uclibc toolchains under the x86 |
| 3 |
mainly. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I'll make an ebuild for the new one, and test it out. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
--Jude Pereira |
| 9 |
(http://judepereira.com/blog) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Ed W <lists@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> On 29/08/2011 15:23, Jude Pereira wrote: |
| 15 |
> > I've been able to create stages for x86 under the uclibc profile using |
| 16 |
> > catalyst. |
| 17 |
> > I'd like that they get upstream to the gentoo mirrors, so that its |
| 18 |
> > available publicly. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > I'm also willing to maintain them, I'd love to be a gentoo uclibc |
| 21 |
> > maintainer for the x86 arch. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Excellent idea. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I am using latest uclibc (slightly newer git release than .32). It is |
| 26 |
> so much better and easier to use than what is in portage that we |
| 27 |
> desperately need to dump the current portage uclibc for all archs that |
| 28 |
> support nptl + uclibc latest! I don't think I have any local patches |
| 29 |
> now to build under this uclibc version...! |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Additionally I have had some success enabling iconv on latest uclibc. |
| 32 |
> This needs some tweaking to the uclibc src if you are building under a |
| 33 |
> uclibc toolchain (it only builds correctly under a glibc toolchain, but |
| 34 |
> easy to workaround). Patches are on the uclibc mailing list and I can |
| 35 |
> highlight them if needed. It adds around 50KB to my build size, but also |
| 36 |
> it allows git and a bunch of other ebuilds to build successfully without |
| 37 |
> patching - some people may like this trade off - I suspect that the |
| 38 |
> build size could be reduced with some work |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> I have asked if someone would proxy maintain this - I don't have a whole |
| 41 |
> bunch of time, but I would love to see portage get pulled up to date if |
| 42 |
> someone had the time to give it a push? My vote would be for .32 to |
| 43 |
> become stable (subject to normal arch signoffs) and a regular git |
| 44 |
> snapshot to be tracked and keyword masked |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> I think uclibc stages will mainly be useful to highlight that gentoo is |
| 47 |
> a good build environment for embedded and to provide a working toolchain |
| 48 |
> for cross compiling. Love to see this become productionised |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> Cheers |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> Ed W |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> |
Archives