Baslinux mailing list

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

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 
compiled lynx.

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?
>
> 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.

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.
>
> David

Do you report to uClibc when things don't work?