[uClibc]Re: uclibc tool installation

[Erik Andersen]

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--