1 |
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 16:31, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: |
2 |
> Hello! |
3 |
> |
4 |
> I'm new to gentoo(and -embedded). I have built on x86 successfully the |
5 |
> attached list of packages |
6 |
What attached list? |
7 |
> (based on Redhat's rawhide releases) against |
8 |
> uClibc-0.9.2[0-2], all RPMS. If the used patches are needed (and the |
9 |
> spec-files), I would provide them (sorry, the src.rpm's are not |
10 |
> downloadable, I am behind an analog modem ;-( ). The main problems where |
11 |
> NIS,PAM,NLS and some functions missing (not required by SUSv3). The |
12 |
> packages are not used (yet) on a production system. |
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
> I've also got a patch for uClibc from the PaX team, to make it possible to |
16 |
> use ET_DYN binaries (pax version, not -pie), but do not have the knowledge |
17 |
> to correct it (if the correction is done, the developers would include it |
18 |
> into uClibc), so hardened-embedded support would work too (I use kernels |
19 |
> patched with grsec-1.x, 2.x would be no problem, the PaX part is the |
20 |
> same, no experience with lsm/selinux and 2.6 kernels). |
21 |
|
22 |
For this we are in luck. I've add a new local use flag for uClibc-0.9.22 |
23 |
called "etdyn" which adds support thanks to the patch provided by the |
24 |
PaX Team for the 0.9.22 build we also add in the interp.c and crt1S.S |
25 |
|
26 |
Note: |
27 |
A second cleaner PaX patch is in the works right now, I'm sure you will |
28 |
see a copy of it here soon enough. |
29 |
|
30 |
> |
31 |
> There are problems building some of the binaries with propolice enabled |
32 |
> gcc, mainly the .hidden support in binutils has to be "hidden" from gcc, |
33 |
> but as I can see (read), the glibc version does not work flawlessly |
34 |
> either. |
35 |
> |
36 |
Have you successfully used ssp with uclibc? |
37 |
|
38 |
> Some (earlier) ideas (or from other gentoo-* lists) |
39 |
> 1. UPX works too (I have built 1.91-cvs), the compression is not so good, |
40 |
> as with prebuilt binaries (NRV is not free), but works also on kernel |
41 |
> images (bzImage) |
42 |
|
43 |
Would this have a big advantage over say cramfs support? I would assume |
44 |
that most compressed file systems or executable packers also tend to use |
45 |
more memory on access whihc could lead to an ever slower system. |
46 |
|
47 |
> |
48 |
> 2. As I have read on the gentoo-dev list, there are many against splitting |
49 |
> the packages in subpackages. For this project it is a "must have it", like |
50 |
> what ibuild tries to do (if I interpreted it correctly), Bering does it |
51 |
> too) |
52 |
Good thing we are on the #gentoo-embedded list and are pretty much free |
53 |
to decide what's best for our own needs. |
54 |
|
55 |
> |
56 |
> 3. The uClibc toolchain is not uptodate, but the buildroot is already used |
57 |
> by the developers themselves to create development images, so the infos on |
58 |
> cross-building are there and tested already. |
59 |
|
60 |
Please take a look at the 0.9.22 ebuild in portage. The wrappers for |
61 |
gcc,c++,ld,ldd,ar,etc are all missing and I don't know why. I've checked |
62 |
the detail/changelogs on the uclibc.org site and see no mention of this |
63 |
what so ever. |
64 |
|
65 |
> This is the path I go too, if |
66 |
> uClibc becomes binary incompatible. I build first the target development |
67 |
> environment, then chroot into it and rebuild rpm, after that rebuilding |
68 |
> all other packages. |
69 |
> |
70 |
> 4. My preference would be to replace sysvinit stuff (I think included in |
71 |
> baselayout) with some other init (runit, minit, simpleinit, twsinit) to |
72 |
> have better dependency handling in the startup scripts, also allowing |
73 |
> parallel startup of services. |
74 |
We can more or less dump all of the baselayout and or repackage it or |
75 |
make an e-baselayout. |
76 |
|
77 |
> 5. -Os would be better to be default for embedded (instead of -O2) (seen |
78 |
> in the embedded profile) |
79 |
|
80 |
Thanks.. fixed in portage. |
81 |
|
82 |
|
83 |
Please note that the uclibc-x86-1.4 profile is in no way shape or form |
84 |
ready for any sort of production, it's 100% untested as of now. |
85 |
|
86 |
We leave it up to you guys on the mailing list to help decide what |
87 |
should stay and what must go in the profile as well as submitting any |
88 |
new profiles for xyz arch. |
89 |
|
90 |
> Peter |
91 |
|
92 |
-- |
93 |
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o> |
94 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |