* [gentoo-dev] 2 uclibc questions : (un)masked / new use flag ?
@ 2003-05-20 23:25 Sylvain
2003-05-22 21:07 ` Zach Welch
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Sylvain @ 2003-05-20 23:25 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
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.
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/:$PATH in the environnement of econf and
emake function.
Waiting for comments :-)
regards,
sylvain
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] 2 uclibc questions : (un)masked / new use flag ?
2003-05-20 23:25 [gentoo-dev] 2 uclibc questions : (un)masked / new use flag ? Sylvain
@ 2003-05-22 21:07 ` Zach Welch
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Zach Welch @ 2003-05-22 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Sylvain; +Cc: gentoo-dev
Sylvain wrote:
> Hello !
>
> My questions are in the title :-)
>
> 1) What about unmasking uclibc ebuild ? Did someone use it ? If so,
> are you happy with it, so that it would be possible to unmask it. I
> didn't find anything related to it on bugs.gentoo, and very few
topics
> in forums.
uCLibc should not be unmasked, and I was somewhat surprised to learn it
was in portage in the first place. Please see the following page:
http://cvs.gentoo.org/~zwelch/uclibc.html
which summarizes the state of uClibc (in the context of the larger
Gentoo Embedded project) as I currently can tell it. I look forward to
any comments or corrections for that page, or any other on the site.
[[ more reply below ]]
> 2) Maybe i should submit a bug for that, but i first want to know if
> i'm the only person interested in that : i speak about a uclibc use
> flag. Packages in particular which could benefit from that are of
> course
busybox,
> but also udhcp, and maybe others ? A package using this flag would
> change the PATH variable to /usr/i386-linux-uclibc/usr/bin/:$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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-05-22 21:08 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-05-20 23:25 [gentoo-dev] 2 uclibc questions : (un)masked / new use flag ? Sylvain
2003-05-22 21:07 ` Zach Welch
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox