Buildroot and bitbake

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:16:48PM +0200, Laurent Bercot wrote:
>  Suspecting is a dangerous business. :)
> 
>  There are many, many more customers of uClibc that do not necessarily
> use buildroot or OpenEmbedded. Every company that works with embedded
> systems and knows what it's doing (granted, that might not mean a lot)
> is using uClibc; some of them use hand-made, proprietary (or free)
> root building systems.

Yeah I didn't like any of those very much and found them inflexible,
so I did my own.

>  Most of them try to build their own uClibc-based toolchain and fail
> miserably. (To their credit, it's horribly difficult; not because of
> uClibc, but because of gcc's assumptions.) This is probably what hurts
> uClibc usage the most: you need to design a toolchain around it to be
> able to use it, and it's not a simple task at all.

I use uclibc as released, gcc from fsf, linux kernel from kernel.org, etc.
It isn't really that hard to do.  Or maybe I am just weird.

>  Rob, I'm impatiently waiting for an Aboriginal Linux uClibc-0.9.32
> based toolchain (mostly native i686 and cross armv7 if you can), so
> I can actually *use* the new uClibc. Your toolchains are about the
> only ones I trust.

-- 
Len Sorensen