Re: [gentoo-dev] 2 uclibc questions : (un)masked / new use flag ?

[Zach Welch <zwelch@gentoo.org>]

Sylvain wrote:
 > Hello !
 >
 > My questions are in the title :-)
 >
 > 1) What about unmasking uclibc ebuild ? Did someone use it ? If so,
 > are you happy with it, so that it would be possible to unmask it. I
 > didn't find anything related to it on bugs.gentoo, and very few
topics
 > in forums.

uCLibc should not be unmasked, and I was somewhat surprised to learn it
was in portage in the first place. Please see the following page:

http://cvs.gentoo.org/~zwelch/uclibc.html

which summarizes the state of uClibc (in the context of the larger
Gentoo Embedded project) as I currently can tell it.  I look forward to
any comments or corrections for that page, or any other on the site.

[[ more reply below ]]
 > 2) Maybe i should submit a bug for that, but i first want to know if
 > i'm the only person interested in that : i speak about a uclibc use
 > flag. Packages in particular which could benefit from that are of
 > course
busybox,
 > but also udhcp, and maybe others ? A package using this flag would
 > change the PATH variable to /usr/i386-linux-uclibc/usr/bin/:$PATH in
 > the environnement of econf and emake function.
 >

The above page explains why a USE flag is not quite the right solution,
and provides a suggested alternative.  The new gcc-config should handle
the installation of and dynamic switching to uClibc-based compilers and
cross-compilers; I personally have looked at this while rewriting
gcc-config, so it will be supported - eventually.

Don't let this discourage you though: I will be posting a full
announcment of the embedded project shortly, and your continued interest
with uClibc could help drive that portion of the project forward.

Cheers,

Zach Welch
Gentoo Embedded Lead
Superlucidity Services


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list