[uClibc] Toolchain procedure questions...

[Manuel Novoa III]

Hello,

On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 12:44:17PM +0200, Nick Jennings wrote:
>  That type of documentation is one thing, and although it may take a bit
>  longer to decipher when figuring it out for the first time, it's
>  commented and can be understood. However, another aspect of documentation
>  is explaining what it's all about and what the buildroot is for, what the
>  toolchain is for - with examples. Simply saying "to build uclibc based
>  applications, you need a toolchain, a toolchain is gcc, uclibc, and
>  binutils", is 'correct' but not very explanitory.

I agree that it isn't very explanitory.  But the intent wasn't to
explain how things work.  Rather, the intent was to build working
toolchains that can be used.

> >> I've seen some hostility in regards to people who have made comments
> >> about the lack of documentation, and before I become another target,
> >> I'd like to
> >
> > Hostility?  When?
> 
>  Ok, maybe just impatience. It wasn't as much as an acusation as an
>  attempt to avoid getting the same responses I found in previous postings.

I always try to be helpful to those who make an effort.  But I admit to
sometimes getting impatient with those who keep asking questions after
I've told them they don't seem to have the necessary skill set.  And I
have absolutely no tolerance for those who want something handed to them
on a platter.

> > 4) apply binutils patches to add support for <arch>-linux-uclibc tuples
> 
>  Aha! here is the first problem (and as far as I got last night, using
>  your email as a reference).
>  The patch files were generated based on binutils-2.14.90.0.7 ... what's
>  the difference between this and just 2.14? I don't know, but based on the
>  timestamp on the ftp.kernel.org site, it's from Oct. 2003. The patches
>  generate lots of .rej files when I try to patch against just plain 2.14
>  or 2.15 (this was the first patch, x-001-debian.patch).

Generally, we try to stick with a version that works across all the
supported archs.  In particular, we generally stick with what debian
uses and apply their patches.  But Erik and I have talked about the
possibility of using different binutils for different archs.

>  Why is it necessary to maintain these patches yourselves? Isn't that a
>  bit of a PITA? Any new version comes out, and a new patch must be
>  created. Can't they be submitted to the maintainers for incorporation? or
>  are they hacks?

The patches are certainly not hacks, and some could be pushed upstream.
But the libstdc++ patch is _not_ ready, as I plan one more rewrite of the
locale internals prior to the 1.0 release.

>  Thank you very much for the steps though, they are very helpful in
>  understanding the process better and have also helped me to decipher the
>  makefile process a bit more. I'll have more questions as I get to the
>  later steps I think.

You're welcome.

Manuel