| 1 |
> I was using uclibc-ng builds for MIPS to build netboot images between 2017 |
| 2 |
> and 2019 to refine my build processes. uclibc-ng still produces smaller |
| 3 |
> overall binaries and libs for the netboot than musl does (usually ~1MB |
| 4 |
> smaller, which is actually significant, especially on SGI IP22 systems). |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Unfortunately for uclibc-ng, it stopped working for me in ~2019. I have no |
| 7 |
> clue why, either. The March 2019 uclibc-ng MIPS stage3 I built internally |
| 8 |
> works perfectly fine when you unpack it and leave it alone, but as soon as |
| 9 |
> you compile *anything* more recent with the compiler that's when the |
| 10 |
> breaking begins. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Rebuilding ncurses in this stage3 will break Python, which breaks emerge. |
| 13 |
> Never figured it out. I can trace the failure using GDB to a point in |
| 14 |
> Python, but not much farther beyond that. I assume the true cause is |
| 15 |
> something in uclibc-ng itself. Upstream seems to like to borrow chunks of |
| 16 |
> glibc for things, and I wonder if that may be partly to blame. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> I eventually gave up and went to musl for MIPS/o32. musl quite literally |
| 19 |
> JustWorks(). It's great. Even with that tiny bit of bloat in the netboot |
| 20 |
> build (workable, cause I needed to make NFS Root an option anyways). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> So long story short, I won't shed any tears if uclibc-ng goes away. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> Joshua Kinard |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I wonder if uclibc-ng people fixed the bugs since your ill fortune, or if uclibc-ng development has fallen off. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Since musl works so much better for you, you will probably not want to go back. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
How did you build your March 2019 stage3, or where would I go on Gentoo website? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I would naturally seek something more current, glibc or musl probably preferable to uclibc-ng. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Tom |
Archives