Phil Endecott wrote:
I know that uClibc has been discussed here frequently, but it's hard to know what the current status is; www.emdebian.org says that replacing glibc with uclibc is "yet to be investigated", but that could be out of date by now. Can anyone confirm what the current status is, and advise how I should proceed?
If the two runtime libraries were drop-in replacements for each other, it'd be easy. But glibc is a functional super-set of uClibc, so you'd never get all of Debian to run under uClibc--- and I bet that some of the emdebian packages might have problems too (though I can't point to a known instance).
In fact, I don't think a drop-in replacement is even possible without changing the name of the dynamic linker in uClibc (trivial, I think). Gcc basically hardcodes the name to ld.so unless you build the toolchain with uClibc from the get-go. IIRC, anyway.
Build up a runtime environment by hand or with something like buildroot, and serve it over NFS during testing. Then go to initramfs, jffs2, etc. on the target as appropriate. That's what I do.
b.g. -- Bill Gatliff bgat@billgatliff.com