uClibc success/failures/stories anyone?
deicher5 at cox.net
Thu Aug 1 16:47:13 PDT 2002
> Funnily enough, after running `make' as a user an d then `make install'
> as root I tried `make all install'. It appeared to do some compiling and
> installation, but still no joy.
> /> Run /usr/i386-linux-uclibc/bin/ldd on dynamically compiled programs /
> /> and copy libs to wherever... /
> /> /
> Ah! You are compiling uClibc for dynamic libraries (makes sense for a
> floppy) and (from the next paragraph) are able to build statically ? I
> hadn't thought of that, I'll give it a try tomorrow.
Ok, now I think I see what's happening. I think you don't have the
right extra options compiled in to uClibc. I've seen linker errors on a
few progs and would find I need to turn on C99 math or RPC and then it
would compile just fine. I don't think this would really hurt your goal
just turn on extra options since it wouldn't end up in your static
binary if it wasn't needed, it would only take up a little more space on
your host system.
Another thing I've seen is the progs are picky on how you tell them
to compile against uclibc. Some you change just CC=i386-uclinux-gcc in
configure, others need it as a command line option and some need the
full path /usr/i386-linux-uclibc/usr/bin/1386-uclibc-gcc. Iptables and
fdisk needed "CC=/usr/i386-linux-uclibc/bin/cc make" so you have a few
options. I usually try all of them until I find one that works. There
probably is an easy way that I don't know about and I have yet to find a
"uClibc for unemployed art majors howto" but what would be the challenge
Hopefully this will get you a little closed to your goal. I think if
there is an easy way to convince a prog to compile against uClibc it
would be fairly easy to make ch5 - except for gcc which is the major
disk hog and apparently won't compile against uclibc.
Best of luck to you,
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-support