On man, 2006-01-02 at 16:21 +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, solar wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 15:03 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > On Tuesday 27 December 2005 13:02, solar wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 14:36 +0100, Natanael Copa wrote: > > > > > Anyone who know the status of glibc-2 in embedded? > > > > > > > > Assuming you mean glib2 it still remains at the same state. > > > > This is a sore spot for some of us being that the only problem > > > > moving forward is coming from another Gentoo developer. > > > > > > considering said developer has been afk for quite a while, > > > > cough good. > > > > > why dont i just go > > > ahead and include the patch in our ebuilds (especially since upstream has > > > accepted it) > > > > I was unaware it was accepted for glib or even submitted for that > > matter. But I like your idea. > > The patch was only accepted for gtk+, but for glib2 I am sure it won't > ever be acceptable, because upstream the test for iconv() and nls support > will stop the build, if they are both not found.
Why cannot upstream glib2 support non iconv/nls? > nls is no real problem, because it can be replaced by dummies, yvasilev > made a better patch for iconv() replacement. > > I see the future rather by enabling iconv() in uClibc (but not the > nls/libintl/gettext stuff). That allows proper glib2 builds and everything > that depends on it. > The nls part can be disabled/replaced by dummies in > glib-2/glib/gi18n[-lib].h, that will allow to solve all glib2 dependant > apps by: > sed -i 's:libintl.h:gi18n.h:' <file> > > I have built like this all of emerge gnome wow... including firefox? -- Natanael Copa -- [email protected] mailing list
