On Tuesday 18 October 2011 05:27:32 Ed W wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> I concede to being somewhat confused on how all the various pieces
> integrate, but iconv seems like an increasingly useful piece, even if
> only in a flawed capability that supports only 7 bit to UTF-8 and vice
> versa.

the issue is that the current cross-compilers delete the `iconv` binary that 
is cross-compile to run on CHOST, not CBUILD.  the native CBUILD `iconv` is 
still available.

if you want to use sys-libs/glibc for a target, atm you need to compile it for 
the target: CBUILD=x86_64 CHOST=arm CTARGET=arm.

> Some experimentation with latest uclibc suggests that it has some
> working iconv capability, although it appears to also cause a limited
> locale implementation to be pulled in (which I really don't have a
> requirement for).  I haven't tried to use it in anger, but for example
> it allows a bunch of ebuilds to compile which previously moaned about
> missing iconv implementations (admitedly those with tests claiming that
> the uclibc iconv is incomplete...)

this is iconv() from the C library, not the `iconv` binary.

i wish locale support in uClibc was more feature complete ...
-mike