[BL] compiling with uclibc
keesan at sdf.lonestar.org
Thu Jan 26 07:58:27 EST 2006
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, David Moberg wrote:
> sindi keesan wrote:
>> Assuming they compile. So far nothing has compiled.
> Try a text-mode web browser, such as links or lynx. Even if
> this uClibc root is useful for nothing else, it is still useful
> for building browsers that run almost anywhere.
But these are much larger and more complicated and requiring first
compiling libncurses and other things, and besides you have already
Pilot-link did compile (glibc 2.2.5/gcc 2.95.3 and uclibc).
>> Why does uClibc not organize itself like glibc so that programs can be
>> compiled more easily?
> That's a good question. They seem to be stuck on version 0.9.28,
> which is about half a year old. Maybe they haven't gotten around
> to fixing it yet.
5 year old glibc is similar to new glibc.
>>> LDFLAGS="-lm" ./configure
>> lm meaning libm?
>> I will try this. What does LDFLAGS mean? Is it pointing ld-linux to
> It's actually telling ld, the program, to link in libm when it links the
> binary. If you are compiling dynamically, then ld will put instructions
> into the binary that will tell ld-linux to find and use libm at runtime.
I apparently compiled dynamically against libm.
>> My main reason for compiling with uClibc would be so that I can compile
>> programs requiring later libc, without having to download and install the
>> later libc. Is this likely to be possible once I get past this sort of
>> stumbling block? I should read up on how to use uClibc at their site.
> uClibc behaves somewhat inconsistently... MPlayer works with glibc 2.1
> or 2.2 but doesn't work with uClibc, but make 3.80 doesn't work with glibc
> 2.1 but does work with 2.2 or uclibc.
Do you report to uClibc when things don't work?
More information about the BasLinux