Missing error_print_progname in new snapshot.

[Rob Landley]

On Monday 27 March 2006 9:15 am, sjhill at realitydiluted.com wrote:
> > > Which is the whole fricking point. THIS IS NOT GENTOO. THIS IS NOT
> > > GENTOO.
> >
> > This is not buildroot either. This is uClibc. (or?)
>
> buildroot and uClibc go hand in hand.
>
> > > People want and expect buildroot to work with uClibc out of the box.
> >
> > I don't care about buildroot. I care about a good uclibc. I know what I
> > care about does not matter, I just want to let you know that there are
> > people out here, using uclibc *without* buildroot.
>
> Which I am well aware of. Think of buildroot as the testsuite for a
> working uClibc.

Because if you can't build the test suite, you can't build the project.  
(That's why you have to install tcl and expect in order to compile gcc.)

> The test programs with uClibc are not enough. buildroot 
> is the test of whether uClibc is usable for an entire system.

Gentoo embedded is an entire system.

> > There are other ways to use uclibc than using buildroot.
>
> I'm not arguing that. I'm thrilled to see distros based on uClibc. The
> point is that buildroot is the reference/standard for showing a working
> uClibc system.

Not to me.

> > In practice, That means that you cannot develop uclibc without
> > developing buildroot.
>
> Now you're starting to understand. buildroot and uClibc should be
> developed together.

You mean uClibc should stop having releases?

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.