[uClibc]Re: uclibc tool installation
Erik Andersen
andersen at codepoet.org
Sat Feb 2 07:19:45 UTC 2002
On Sat Feb 02, 2002 at 08:24:57AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> David Schleef <ds at schleef.org> writes:
> > Can't you just install them to a separate directory, as per the
> > default?
>
> Yeah, as Erik pointed out; I had disabled this feature and not realized it!
>
> I do think the default values are quite confusing, in that
> distinguishing between one set of names and the other by putting the
> `exportable' (non-conflicting) names in a subtree called `usr' seems
> slightly wierd. It would be nice to know the reasoning behind this, in
> case there's something I'm missing.
There are a few reasons. On my system (Debian woody) I have the
"altgcc" package installed, which provides a libc5 development
environment. I have structured things in part following that
pattern. It is constructed as follows:
/usr/i486-linuxlibc1/bin/
gcc
g++
etc...
/usr/i486-linuxlibc1/lib/
libc.a
libc.so -> /lib/libc.so.5.4.46
libm.a
libm.so -> /lib/libm.so.5.0.9
etc...
/usr/i486-linuxlibc1/include/
stdio.h
unistd.h
etc...
And you will notice that the default uClibc installation follows
that pattern fairly closely. But I also wanted to have a cross
toolchain (the tools with `exportable' names). So looking at the
gcc-arm package I have installed, it adds /usr/bin/arm-linux-gcc,
so wanted to create a parallel structure with the `exportable'
names under <somewhere>/usr/bin
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
More information about the uClibc
mailing list