[uClibc] 0.9.23 configuration and buildtools

[Manuel Novoa III]

Hello,

On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 03:58:07AM +0000, wct2003jm at comcast.net wrote:
> I'm new to the list, and my searches of the archives may be incomplete; if I am repeating a dead issue please fling dull arrows only.
> 
> I must have missed something. Buildtools does not give the user a change to run menuconfig on uClibc before proceeding. It does allow for certain defaults to be changed, and one can edit the buildtools or, with less confidence in the result, do a 'make clean' and then go edit the .config to obtain desired results - usually.

I never use 'make clean' myself.  In fact, I pretty much always do full
builds.  It wouldn't surprise me if the make dependencies weren't
suitable for continuing interrupted builds.

As far as configuration, you can supply your own uClibc and busybox
config files.  Look under buildroot/sources and at make/uclibc.mk
and make/busybox.mk.

> First off, this stuff is obviously better written than that (IHMO) and so I conclude right off that I am just doing something wrong.

No.  Buildroot has kind of been pieced together over time.  There are
things that don't work which arent' documented.

> But more to the issue - even with my current means, I cannot seem to get BusyBox 0.60.5 to link against uClibc 0.9.23 if I insist on no MMU nor any FPU. Again, I must be missing something. It's the old "undefined reference to 'daemon'" in klogd_main and also syslogd_main.

Sorry, but buildroot doesn't work for the no MMU case.  If you want
something that works out of the box for no MMU, you'll probably want
to look at the uClinux distribution. 

Also, uClibc's daemon() isn't built for the no MMU case since it uses fork().

> My guess is that I am enabling too few TARGETS; I desire only to get a full-fledged cross-development environment for this board right now, and worry about the kernel after that.  I currently ask buildtools to enable
> 
>         kernel-headers busybox tinylogin
> 
> I am bringing down the TARGETS of  'linux' and 'system-linux' now, in hopes of defining those missing symbols.
> 
> If I recall, the only reason I included busybox at this point was not that I needed it, but that I could not get gdb to build for lack of libterm . I have founbd Erik's message containing a gdb Make incantation that should resolve that.
> 
> The whole question is summarized: why does the FPU support seem to cause trouble for busybox?

busybox was failing to build in that configuration because of no MMU
support in uClibc, and hence no daemon() function.  Choice of FPU
support didn't have anything to do with it.

> Thanks in advance - overall I do have to say I am impressed with the build support for all this 0 sorry to have a problem to ask about!

No problem.  As I said though, for no MMU you probably want to take
a look at uClinux.  You might also look at ucdot.org.

Manuel