Andy Green wrote:
>> Sounds like you found a solution ^^
>
> It's a solution for me, but from tthe philosophical point of view, there
> is probably the greater issue of the distribution to consider. Is
> dietlibc really that useful on a non-embedded distribution (yes, I know
> I'm referring to the ARM port of something as non-embedded)? What really
Well a major reason to rely on a distro with a well-stocked repo of
binaries is that you can just use them, and other people have been
banging on them and fixing them too. The prebuilt stuff is all built
against glibc so that's a strong reason to stick with that.
The point I was getting to was that the stock of packages at least in
the base distro should be consistent across platforms, except in very
hardware-specific cases (e.g. there's probably no point in having grub
on ARM or uboot on x86).
> concerns me is that it doesn't build on x86 either, at which
point I
> can't but question what the point of having it in the current state is
> at all.
Dunno. However I do know that there is a lot of politics at least in
the past around glibc
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=glibc+drepper+arrogant
... so it wouldn't surprise me if it's in the distro as a hedge on that
as much as anything else.
It seriously makes you wonder how come there isn't a better, less
politically encumbered libc around. The really vexing thing about the
situation is that both glibc and dietlibc are very gcc specific. This
rather precludes the possibility of having an entire distro built with
another (better) compiler.
Gordan