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 faster... > > * 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... daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
