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

Re: [I386-uclibc-devel] Re: Embeddded Debian meetup @ Extremadura

Em Ter, 2006-01-03 às 08:16 -0600, Bill Gatliff escreveu:
> So many important topics, so little time!

*sigh*... Unfortunally I have to agree...

> > * prepare uclibc ports [4]
> Sadly, I'm not a DD (yet) but I could definitely get behind this 
> proposal.  Not only does it benefit embedded in a BIG way, but it also 
> keeps Debian relevant on the class of machines that will likely be used 
> in developing countries for the next few years.  And I'm not talking 
> just about x86 architectures.

This is one of the main concerns for the i386-uclibc work. I know that
if I just wanted to get a bootstrapped i386-uclibc sarge, it wouldn't so
hard as it's being. Because we (actually, enerv is working much more on
this than me) want to create a toolchain integrated into debian, not as
scratchbox or buildroot does, which works fine, but is not so nice to
maintain a distribution...

> I would love to stand up a fully-working armel-uclibc port, or at least 
> get the essential and build-essential packages running.  I use 
> debootstrap, so lack of an installer wouldn't be a problem.

The same case for me. But we're a little stuck in the toolchain, due to
gcc(3-4), binutils(0.15-0.16), uclibc(ok, it's just changing too much)
transition... I'll see some patches I just received to see if we can go

> > * cross-compiling for buildd's
> I'm doing cross distcc now.  :)

Ok. This brings another problem. The new dpkg (1.13), which claimed to
be subarches-friendly, is, actually unfriendly. Some changes are needed
to enable subarches like i386-uclibc or armel-uclibc or anything-uclibc.
Debhelper prior to 5.0.7 had a sub-arch related bug also...

I mean, there's some needed works inside the debian infra-structure...
but dpkg-cross already does a great job. We're closer...


Reply to: