Baslinux mailing list

[Sindi Keesan <keesan AT iamjlamb.com>]

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 3aoo-cvfd AT dea.spamcon.org wrote:

> Sindi Keesan wrote:
> > 
> > Would it be possible to compile things in BL3 
> > (older glibc5) and then add glibc5 to BL2 and 
> > run the BL3 programs in BL2?  
> 
> Yes.  I believe Slackware 7.1 even has an optional
> package for the libc5 runtime.  

Can one also add and compile with the SW3.x compiler in SW7.1, statically
(with the glibc5 routines incorporated in the program) by somehow pointing
Makefile to glibc5 instead of glibc6, unless a particular program is
written to require the later library?  Is there any advantage to using the
later library, such as programs running faster even though they are
larger?

> > how large is the runtime library?  
> 
> Less than 1mb.  About half the size of glibc2.

Is glibc6 larger in order to work on more hardware?  My hardware is all 
older than SW3, I think.  I noticed that a lot of the linux source code 
(headers) is for many different hardwares in the later library (2.2.5, 
anyway), so I deleted all the mips ppc sparc stuff.  I could probably also 
delete all the ham radio and most of the sound.

Is a statically compiled program based on libc5 still going to be larger 
than one compiled dynamically using libc6?  
 

What are the proper terms - libc5, glibc2, glibc6, libc6?  I get confused.
Thanks for the education.

> 
> > Or would it make them much larger to compile statically 
> > incorporating libc5 
> 
> Yes, they will be larger.  But not as large as static
> glibc2.  The static binaries in BL3 are compiled with
> uClibc (which makes the smallest binaries of the three).

Are there programs that cannot be compiled with uClibc and if so, what 
makes them uncompilable?  

> 
> > I still need to read WORD files that are beyond the
> > capabilities of five WORD to text convertors.
> 
> I've been quite happy with AbiWord.  It sometimes messes
> up the formatting a bit, but the text is very readable
> (except when somebody has imported spreadsheet data into
> their Word document).

Unfortunately, when translating I need to preserve the format.  I recall
one especially awful WORD file that came in three pieces (with little
ovals drawn around them) and each of my five WORD convertors scrambled it
differently, some leaving out pieces.  Antiword and wvware (which I think
is what Abiword is using) just rearranged them and missed a few other
oddities.  The translation agency finally printed and faxed me the pages
instead.  WORDVIEW seems to get things right even though it is 1997 and
they are probably sending newer WORD.

I will attempt to compile wvware some day, or install Abiword. How well
does it deal with WORD that is made from scanned documents (with embedded
images)?

> 
> Cheers,
> Steven
> 
> _______________________________________________