Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

baslinux - Re: [BL] /lib/cpp error compiling in BL2 with libc-2.2.5 upgrade

baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Baslinux mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: sindi keesan <keesan AT sdf.lonestar.org>
  • To: baslinux AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [BL] /lib/cpp error compiling in BL2 with libc-2.2.5 upgrade
  • Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:44:26 +0000 (UTC)

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page