1 |
On Tuesday 18 October 2011 05:27:32 Ed W wrote: |
2 |
> > you aren't the first person to find this behavior undesirable, and when i |
3 |
> > implemented it, it was more of "let's save space on things i don't think |
4 |
> > anyone will use". but if people are using it, then installing these |
5 |
> > things probably makes sense. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> I concede to being somewhat confused on how all the various pieces |
8 |
> integrate, but iconv seems like an increasingly useful piece, even if |
9 |
> only in a flawed capability that supports only 7 bit to UTF-8 and vice |
10 |
> versa. |
11 |
|
12 |
the issue is that the current cross-compilers delete the `iconv` binary that |
13 |
is cross-compile to run on CHOST, not CBUILD. the native CBUILD `iconv` is |
14 |
still available. |
15 |
|
16 |
if you want to use sys-libs/glibc for a target, atm you need to compile it for |
17 |
the target: CBUILD=x86_64 CHOST=arm CTARGET=arm. |
18 |
|
19 |
> Some experimentation with latest uclibc suggests that it has some |
20 |
> working iconv capability, although it appears to also cause a limited |
21 |
> locale implementation to be pulled in (which I really don't have a |
22 |
> requirement for). I haven't tried to use it in anger, but for example |
23 |
> it allows a bunch of ebuilds to compile which previously moaned about |
24 |
> missing iconv implementations (admitedly those with tests claiming that |
25 |
> the uclibc iconv is incomplete...) |
26 |
|
27 |
this is iconv() from the C library, not the `iconv` binary. |
28 |
|
29 |
i wish locale support in uClibc was more feature complete ... |
30 |
-mike |