Andy Green wrote: >>> Sounds like you found a solution ^^ >> >> It's a solution for me, but from tthe philosophical point of view, there >> is probably the greater issue of the distribution to consider. Is >> dietlibc really that useful on a non-embedded distribution (yes, I know >> I'm referring to the ARM port of something as non-embedded)? What really > > Well a major reason to rely on a distro with a well-stocked repo of > binaries is that you can just use them, and other people have been > banging on them and fixing them too. The prebuilt stuff is all built > against glibc so that's a strong reason to stick with that. The point I was getting to was that the stock of packages at least in the base distro should be consistent across platforms, except in very hardware-specific cases (e.g. there's probably no point in having grub on ARM or uboot on x86). >> concerns me is that it doesn't build on x86 either, at which point I >> can't but question what the point of having it in the current state is >> at all. > > Dunno. However I do know that there is a lot of politics at least in > the past around glibc > > http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=glibc+drepper+arrogant > > ... so it wouldn't surprise me if it's in the distro as a hedge on that > as much as anything else. It seriously makes you wonder how come there isn't a better, less politically encumbered libc around. The really vexing thing about the situation is that both glibc and dietlibc are very gcc specific. This rather precludes the possibility of having an entire distro built with another (better) compiler. Gordan _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
