Baslinux mailing list

[sindi keesan <keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org>]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, David Moberg wrote:

> sindi keesan wrote:
> > > > OK. But because it is statically compiled, you will need to use
> > > > the svgalib that I compile in. I will use SW81 svgalib - would
> > > > that work well?
> > >
> > > If it is statically compiled, shouldn't ANY svgalib work?
>
> You can have any svgalib installed. But MPlayer will only
> be able to use its internal (static) svgalib.
>
> > > Will we still need libvga.config?
>
> Yes, if you want to change video options. Should it look
> in /etc/vga for libvga.config or somewhere else (in case
> you have an incompatible libvga.config in /etc/vga)?

How would it be incompatible?  Is your static svgalib different from 
normal ones?

> > > > seejpeg does not work with chipset VGA. Or at least it would not
> > > > when I last tried it.
> > >
> > > I wonder why.  I will try that some time.
>
> I think the author left out support for dithering pictures down
> to 16 colors, therefore it will only work with higher color depths.

This makes it smaller.

Which means you would have to edit libvga.config for cards that won't work 
unless you add 'chipset VESA'.  What is the chance of someone using a USB 
setup with ISA video card?  All but the ATI PCI cards work with either no 
chipset or 'chipset VESA'.

Since zgv fits, it is a good solution that does not require editing to get 
a quick idea of what is on your memory card.


> > > > ln -s ld-2.1.3.so ld-linux.so.2
> > >
> > > Does ldconfig do that automatically?
>
> Oh, yes. I had forgotten that it does do that.

So I could just copy over the older library, delete the newer one, and run 
ld-config.  I will stick with 2.3.2 on one computer and 2.2.5 on the other 
for a while in case I run into something that needs the newer compiler 
from SW91 or want to try a SW91 package, and probably compile shared 
against 2.2.5 and maybe eventually compile a newer compiler for it.

> > > > > I was thinking of compiling my own shared lynx 2.8.6dev16 but the final
> > > > > release should be out eventually, as it has been two years since
> > > > > 2.8.5rel1. Should I compile against 2.2.5 so more BL users can use it?
> > >
> > > > Or perhaps you want to try the
> > > > uClibc development system? You can get it at uclibc.org.
> > > Do you want to help me when I run into problems with it?
>
> OK.
I should probably wait until the next versions of both lynx and uClibc.

> > > > The resulting binary would be smaller than static glibc, and
> > > > not have the broken networking bug (I think it is only in certain
> > > > glibc versions), and work on BL3/1. You could then keep
> > > > the uClibc build system around for the next time that you need
> > > > a static binary.
> >
> > I looked, and there was something about libcrypt not being fully
> > functional.  Lynx uses it.
>
> What does it use libcrypt for? libcrypto (note the o) is for SSL...
Not the same thing?  libcrypto comes in openssl package.

> > And I would have to download 21MB of .bz2 file
> > and compile the static library uClibc.a (?).
>
> Where do you see that? The 21MB contains pre-compiled
> shared and static libraries, gcc, as, ar, gdb, bash, busybox,
> and more.

I must have misunderstood.  There was something about compiling your own 
library - maybe that was only if you wanted to change things.

If I were to compile statically against uClibc, would I first compile 
zlib and ncurses and openssl against uClibc?  I did that for glibc 2.1.3 
and it got very complicated and some things would not compile correctly 
and we had to find workarounds or ignore missing pieces.  It took 2-3 
months.  Maybe uClibc will work better than 2.1.3.

> > I will investigate the glibc network bug.  Maybe it is fixed in 2.3.2 and
> > I could compile statically against that.  Or maybe you want to tackle lynx
> > and uClibc yourself.
>
> I am trying it now.
Thanks.

I wonder how Dillo and elinks are progressing.

> > How much smaller would the uClibc lynx be than the 2MB static version
> > I compiled?  (Which included openssl, ncurses, zlib,
> > and libc).
> >
> > > Can you explain more about that bug?  My static lynx worked with 2.2.5
> > glibcso, I think also with 2.1.3, not online with 2.3.2 or BL3, but it works
> > fine
> > > with 2.3.2 in someone's shared version.  Is it the static glibc.a that
> > > is the problem, and only works with a matching glibcso on the computer?
>
> I think that it is looking for something in glibcso (not a .so or .a file,
> maybe something in /etc??) and will not work without it. I searched
> but could not find any information about this problem. I think this has
> happened to another BL user.

It happened to me a while ago when I tried to use my static lynx with BL3.
Let's hope uClibc works better.

> David