[uClibc] Toolchain procedure questions...
Manuel Novoa III
mjn3 at codepoet.org
Tue Jul 6 16:47:27 UTC 2004
Hello,
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 12:44:17PM +0200, Nick Jennings wrote:
> That type of documentation is one thing, and although it may take a bit
> longer to decipher when figuring it out for the first time, it's
> commented and can be understood. However, another aspect of documentation
> is explaining what it's all about and what the buildroot is for, what the
> toolchain is for - with examples. Simply saying "to build uclibc based
> applications, you need a toolchain, a toolchain is gcc, uclibc, and
> binutils", is 'correct' but not very explanitory.
I agree that it isn't very explanitory. But the intent wasn't to
explain how things work. Rather, the intent was to build working
toolchains that can be used.
> >> I've seen some hostility in regards to people who have made comments
> >> about the lack of documentation, and before I become another target,
> >> I'd like to
> >
> > Hostility? When?
>
> Ok, maybe just impatience. It wasn't as much as an acusation as an
> attempt to avoid getting the same responses I found in previous postings.
I always try to be helpful to those who make an effort. But I admit to
sometimes getting impatient with those who keep asking questions after
I've told them they don't seem to have the necessary skill set. And I
have absolutely no tolerance for those who want something handed to them
on a platter.
> > 4) apply binutils patches to add support for <arch>-linux-uclibc tuples
>
> Aha! here is the first problem (and as far as I got last night, using
> your email as a reference).
> The patch files were generated based on binutils-2.14.90.0.7 ... what's
> the difference between this and just 2.14? I don't know, but based on the
> timestamp on the ftp.kernel.org site, it's from Oct. 2003. The patches
> generate lots of .rej files when I try to patch against just plain 2.14
> or 2.15 (this was the first patch, x-001-debian.patch).
Generally, we try to stick with a version that works across all the
supported archs. In particular, we generally stick with what debian
uses and apply their patches. But Erik and I have talked about the
possibility of using different binutils for different archs.
> Why is it necessary to maintain these patches yourselves? Isn't that a
> bit of a PITA? Any new version comes out, and a new patch must be
> created. Can't they be submitted to the maintainers for incorporation? or
> are they hacks?
The patches are certainly not hacks, and some could be pushed upstream.
But the libstdc++ patch is _not_ ready, as I plan one more rewrite of the
locale internals prior to the 1.0 release.
> Thank you very much for the steps though, they are very helpful in
> understanding the process better and have also helped me to decipher the
> makefile process a bit more. I'll have more questions as I get to the
> later steps I think.
You're welcome.
Manuel
More information about the uClibc
mailing list