Re: Status of uClibc cross-toolchains and packages
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glibc with uclibc is "yet to be investigated", but that could be out of
date by now.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
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.