[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: i386-uclibc debian

Em Qua, 2005-09-28 às 18:03 +0200, Simon Richter escreveu:
> Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > I'm interested in maintaining a i386-uclibc architecture, which is, like
> > the name says, i386 binaries linked with uClibc.
> However, I can see the number of configurations to be somewhat large, so 
> I wonder whether it makes sense to call it a new architecture 
> (especially as uclibc binaries can happily coexist with glibc binaries 
> as long as the same binary does not use both libraries indirectly).

Well, the main reason is that glibc probably won't be even installed on
most machines using this environment, and, the pratical reason is that
it makes easier to start up like this.

I mean, if I setup it as a different architecture I can use plain
dpkg-buildpackage -ai386-uclibc to build it inside my i386 installation,
using the cross-build infrastructure provided by the uclibc toolchain
and dpkg-cross.

> Given that the number of packages that make sense to run on such a
> system is somewhat limited, I would start out by creating "regular"
> i386 packages that just happen to be linked against the uclibc; said  
> packages should be built from a special build target that is not 
> invoked by default and generate packages with a -uc or similar 
> suffix.  For libraries, I'd even go as far as to change their soname  
> so they  can be concurrently installed to the glibc variant.

Well... In contrast, this solution will require a bigger, much bigger,

> This approach has several advantages:
>   - You don't need a new arch

I'm not sure this is an advantage, because in real world, glibc and
uclibc won't be even installed together for this environment.

>   - You can start with replacing single packages inside a running system

This is not the idea. The idea is to provide a full uclibc

>   - The packages can be added into the main archive easily if this is 
> desired later.

Only if I rename a lot of packages... Considering a new arch,  it would
be just there...

> > The i386 packages won't be compatible with my i386-uclibc environment
> > (as I won't have glibc installed). So I started calling the architecture
> > i386-uclibc with gnu name i386-uclibc-linux. And I'd like to ask: Is it
> > OK?
> The alternative would be to rename i386 to i486 and call the new port 
> i386. But that would be an evil transition.

Yeah... I thought about it... Actually, this would be a good excuse to
promote i386 to i486... but certainly, this would be an eeeeeviiiilll
transition,  I don't want to think about it, so, i386-uclibc starts to
be an interesting option...


Reply to: