On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:41:26PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote: > Em S?b, 2006-03-18 ?s 23:17 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu: > > Yes. However, I think that 'setting up buildd' is the least difficult > > of those tasks. It is by far more difficult to produce patches for all > > 'standard debian packages' that make them first of all, cross-compile > > correctly, and (only) then make them uClibc-friendly. > > Sorry, I don't get it. Debian has support for several architectures, why
Supported architectures, yes. But what about un-supported ones, such as i386-uclibc? > a sub-arch would be harder? Many packages will just work. Remember that > in such sub-arch, we can have uclibc-dev replacing libc6-dev, solving > the builddeps... Yeah, hopefully this will just work. From my experience, however, some minimal but still significant amount of patching will be needed. > > Have you ever seen uwoody[1]? there are not so many patches as you're > claiming to be necessary... I'm really lost about what are you talking > about... > > [1] http://people.debian.org/~andersee/uwoody/ > I've heard that uwoody is abandoned by its originator... which is the reason I stopped looking at that. Is there BTW any comparable effort for sarge/etch? > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]