> > I /just/ build want to build uclibc.> > So no interest in installing or
> > using it then?
Basically -- except for the startup code.
I'm using uclibc, for sure, just not the .so files that I build.
Not until I get up the gumption (or extra hardware to risk) to "install" the
resulting file system on a bare drive and try booting it, etc.
> You have to use the same uClibc version. Different uClibc releases aren't >
> binary compatible with each other.
Understood.
> I have a build system at http://landley.net/code/firmware that's implemented
Thanks. I will look.
> www.linuxfromscratch.org has showed people how to build a linux from scratch
> > system from source for almost a decade now.
Aha, I know about but this, your reply rung a bell -- "look at how LFS/CLFS/DIY
handle this (if buildroot is too much to look through)".
They do stuff like make mrproper and manual copying the headers.
This is what I was missing. Thank you.
For now I've made progress using buildroot, being sure to configure more like
my systems has -- no wchar/locale and then moving the results from /usr to
/usr/local. (leaving me unable to natively build, e.g. texinfo, but ok)
I'll probably go back another time and reference LFS/CLFS/DIY. (DIY is similar
but seems better.)
Imho there should be a FAQ on what all the build output directories are --
staging vs. project vs. toolchain.
In particular, depending on the configuration, one of the directories has host
binaries and /usr/include and another has target binaries but no usr/include. I
had to merge stuff. I thought I had asked for a native build system so could
have subsetted just one root. Anyway, this is buildroot, not uclibc.
And how to "install" the result on the cross host. (again, buildroot, not
uclibc).
- Jay
_______________________________________________
uClibc mailing list
[email protected]
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
