[BL] /lib/cpp error compiling in BL2 with libc-2.2.5 upgrade
davidjmoberg at gmail.com
Fri Jan 6 14:03:34 EST 2006
sindi keesan wrote:
> ldd libc.so.5 - statically compiled, does not need ld-linux, which I
> probably did not need to even include in my netpbmt-for-bl2 package.
> ls -l libc.so.5 580K
Try removing ld-linux.so.1 from /lib. Does the libc5 netpbm still work?
I predict that it won't.
> The tiff programs would not compile against my old libtiff.so because I
> did not have the header files. I will get the libtiff developer's
> packages from SW81 if I can't compile libtiff, for which I might need a
> newer gcc-g++. With luck, nobody will send me any tiffs for a while.
You might want the SW71 libtiff-devel instead of SW81.
> Could I just do a make tiffpnm and make pnmtiff or is there some other way
> to compile just those two files?
This might fail if you have not already built libnetpbm.so or .a with
'make' or 'make -k'.
There might be other programs which failed to build. You should
compare what you have with what is in the netpbm-libc5 package.
> When doing make package, I got an error message that I have no echo.
> busybox 1.01 has echo. I put busybox 1.01 on the path on this computer
> ahead of the previous busybox (which I had updated to BL3 busybox).
You can also install echo from slackware. It's probably in shutils.tgz.
The package may be larger, but the echo binary itself is smaller than
> glibc-2.2.25 bloat:
> While tracking down libc.so.5-dependent libraries, I noticed that I have
> in /usr/lib about 70MB of libraries which I think are used only for static
> Can I safely delete at least anything in _p.a, such as a 25MB libc_p.a
> files? The newer libraries no longer come in these pairs, just plain .a
> (p = panel?)
_p.a is for profiling. Profiling is for C programmers who want to figure
out what part of their programs need to be optimized. The rest of us
can safely delete the libraries ending in _p.a.
> There is also a 25MB libc.a. If I used this to compile something
> statically so it could be used on a non-upgraded SW71-based BL2, how much
> would it add to the result?
A lot. Possibly an average of half a megabyte for each netpbm
> Should I bother trying to do this, or can other list members upgrade to glibc
> 2.2.5 or 2.3.1 instead?
It does not make much sense to do this unless you use the 'merge' build
option for netpbm.
If you want BL2 users to not have to upgrade, then build with the SW71
> Then there is a gconv directory with 8MB of things like MACINTOSH.so
> GEORGIAN_ACADEMY.so qand libJIS.so and EBCDIC_PT.so. Do I need anything
> in here other than gconv-modules, ISO8859-*.so, and IBM*.so, EBCDIC_US.so?
> BL3 does not even have this directory - what does it convert? A web search
> suggests it does something with locale (the contents of which I deleted
> since I read English).
It is some kind of character set conversion. You usually do not need it if you
> Do I need any of these to display other character sets with loadfont?
Maybe. Does loadfont work without it?
> Should I add any programs to what I selected for libc5?
I look forward to trying this new netpbm package out.
More information about the BasLinux