[uClibc] Re: crt unacceptable "fix" removal

[Peter S. Mazinger]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Erik Andersen wrote:

> On Fri Oct 15, 2004 at 11:55:16PM +0200, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> > True for cross environment, but not for a native uclibc env, where any of 
> > these are useless (they are already done)
> 
> You keep talking about cross vs native.  I'm not certain that I
> understand why.  If you are building uClibc on a native uClibc
> system, typical usage would be the same, except skipping the
> parts about binutils and gcc:
> 
>     1) build uClibc
>     2) install uClibc
>     3) build uClibc utils
>     4) install uClibc utils

Not only one time build should be considered, updates will be performed 
too, see below.

> 
> > The only thing is: update uClibc and the utils. What remains is:
> > package twice, once build uClibc w/ utils and package/install, after that 
> > build only utils, package/install
> 
> Would it be simpler if the utils were split out into an entirely
> separate package?  They are effectively separate already.

Some time ago ldconfig was not part of glibc, if was a separate package, 
but later on it was added to glibc. Running natively if we update libc 
(and it remains downwards compatible) ldconfig is prerequisite to have the 
new libs loaded (Redhat has also a static binary doing init reload after 
glibc update (but this probably can't be done w/ busybox's init  
currently, not really uclibc related though)

ldd/iconv are rather development stuff.

The only good reason to have the utils in the same package is to keep
ldso/ldd/ldconfig stuff in sync (at least it is easier)

Peter
 
-- 
Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net>           ID: 0xA5F059F2
Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08  BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2