On Fri, 12 Jun 1998, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 1998 at 12:53:55PM +0200, Swen wrote: > > since i was not able to find a binary version of the glibc packages, > > i tried to cross compile it, but egcs needs the target headers in order > > to compile an cross compiler, and since i cannot just get the glibc > > includes (gnu/stubd.h is a result of the glibc
Cross compiling glibc is probably a _very_ bad idea. If you want to compile it, install linuxppc (evil redhat based dist). Heck even compiling it is iffy enough. > > I've only just started trying to get Debian/PPC working locally, so take > this with a grain of salt, but from what I gather the lack of binaries > for glibc, and the lack of the approriate source to compile it are an > oversight rather than a deliberate action. Not so much an oversight as a problem. The libc in that directory is 1.99, and while redhat manages to use it all right, it seems highly unstable with debian-powerpc. So we're using 2.1 prereleases (currently 2.0.94 from alpha.gnu.org is our best shot). > > what is the status of debian-powerpc anyway ? are there still people > > working on it ? how many people, is it no more useful to post to it > > because nobody will reply ? > > As far as I understand it, the current version of glibc doesn't work > on powerpc (or sparc?), and that's making things a touch difficult. :) Oh, we're here all right. The last glibc snapshot had problems on CHRP, but I believe they've been corrected. I'm setting up the dev tools on my machine this week...we'll see. Dan [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
