[uClibc] Re: uClibc 0.9.22 released

[Erik Andersen]

On Mon Nov 10, 2003 at 11:42:53AM -0800, David Schleef wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 02:55:53AM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote:
> > On Mon Nov 10, 2003 at 06:46:13PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> > > Erik Andersen <andersen at codepoet.org> writes:
> > > > The gcc wrapper is depricated and no longer supported (even for
> > > > Debian).
> > > 
> > > Is there a replacement?  I guess I can roll my own, it's just a bit of
> > > pain...
> > 
> > binutils + gcc?   I outlined the case for scuttling the gcc
> > wrapper here:
> > 
> >     http://www.uclibc.org/lists/uclibc/2003-October/007315.html
> > 
> > There comes a time when 90% of correct is not enough.  uClibc has
> > progressed enough that people had begin running into the wrapper
> > limitations quite regularly.  It seemed better to just kill off
> > the wrapper and encourage people to use properly built
> > toolchains.
> 
> As the maintainer of the Debian package, I agree.  I've intended
> to kill off the uclibc-toolchain package for a long time, and
> instead include scripts to build a toolchain from the toolchain-source
> package.  However, just because I intend to do it doesn't mean
> that it will ever get done.  :)

Good!  For the release I moved the gcc wrapper into the
debian dir.  But since I see you are not as attached to
it as I thought, I'm going to wipe it out.

Also...  As you no doubt saw from the debian-embedded list, I've
put together a uClibc/debian distro.  I am rather inclined to
wipe out the current debian stuff (which is geared towards
building uClibc as a subordinate on a glibc host system) and
replace it with the packaging I have for the native uClibc system
(where uClibc takes the place of the libc6 package).  Would that
be a problem for you?

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--