| 1 |
On 22 Jun 2004, Ned Ludd wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > > Attempted to drop the uclibc-patches tarball and compile without any of |
| 4 |
> > > those misc patches as they all seem pie-ssp related or unneeded cruft |
| 5 |
> > > that really does not apply to uClibc at all like -z relro. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I do not use the relro/now patches, the ebuild removes them for now (they |
| 8 |
> > are only for completeness) |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> After talking to mjn3 I don't think relro will even be considered for |
| 11 |
> uClibc till some time after 1.0 |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
could someone else port this to ldso? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > USE="-*" ebuild uclibc-0.9.26-r1.ebuild clean unpack compile |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > have you done this in a buildroot, or on a glibc portage based system? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> glibc.. Has to be glibc at first as there exists no seed stage yet with |
| 23 |
> supporting portage shared objects. |
| 24 |
> Point being is that the uclibc.ebuild is a no go.. I can't merge |
| 25 |
> something that fails to test properly. If it fails on a glibc system |
| 26 |
> then it will never be accepted into portage. uClibc (old wrapper style) |
| 27 |
> is already used by misc gentoo projects for PXE netbooting etc. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I have attached a new version for uClibc, the ssp.c file is the same as |
| 30 |
for glibc |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
it builds for me in glibc and uclibc env. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Peter |
Archives