| 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 |
Archives