Baslinux mailing list

[David Moberg <davidjmoberg AT gmail.com>]

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.

> 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.

> > LDFLAGS="-lm" ./configure
> lm meaning libm?

Right.

> I will try this.  What does LDFLAGS mean?  Is it pointing ld-linux to
> something?

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.

> 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.

David