Hello guys, On 11/23/10 08:14, Victor Martinez wrote:
* Luka Vandervelden (lukc@upyum.com) wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 06:43:11PM +0100, Victor Martinez wrote:
* Luka Vandervelden (lukc@upyum.com) wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:16:55AM +0100, Jose V Beneyto wrote:
On 11/22/10 08:31, Victor Martinez wrote:
* Luka Vandervelden (lukc@upyum.com) wrote: > Hi *. \o_ Hey Luka,
Hello and thanks for posting,
> I have some questions about Crux-ARM. > > First, is a uclibc based toolchain planned???? (and if not, would be > Crux-ARM open to accept patches related to that???? for example, allowing > to build the toolchain with uClibc depending on the target) At the moment there is no plan to start another toolchain based on uclibc, we are trying to follow CRUX, in this sense, the main focus is to give support to the current versions used in CRUX directly, but in another hand, it could be interesting to make tests with uclibc on some embedded machines.
As pitillo said, we are trying to follow CRUX and toolchain's component to be used, but we are not closed to new ideas (uclibc/eglibc/dietlibc) and we could start another branch (or repository) for trying it. In this case we encourage you to contribute and help us a bit to develop and maintain the new stuff.
Ok, I already started to adapt the cross-toolchain to use uClibc. I would be happy to share my modifications, if working. :)
Feel free to share it if you want us to take a look and if we have some free time may be start helping you developing/testing/debugging it. If we make it build right, we can start trying cross-compilations based on ucibc and learn about.
Ok, I???ll send a patch as soon as possible. Maybe it will not be clean or follow the standards of the rest of the toolchain???s Makefile, but I???ll correct that if I have to. /o\
Perfect. We can put hands on and try to adapt to the current state and see if it can fit the standard way used in the current toolchain Makefiles.
Well, I was wondering about to create a new branch for the toolchain called 2.6-uclibc or to create a new repository called toolchain-uclibc. I prefer the last one, but what do you think is the best? Note that in the past, there was a version of CRUX called uCRUX by the simple fact of being built against uclibc, so that's for what I want to create a new repository instead of a branch. After that, you could send patches against this toolchain's stuff, or if you want, we can give you enough permissions to work directly on the git repository. Also note that we should make a little organization in order to release more files and packages. A proposal could be: http://crux-arm.nu/releases/2.6/ crux-arm-rootfs-2.6-noeabi.tar.bz2 crux-arm-rootfs-2.6.tar.bz2 crux-arm-uclibc-rootfs-2.6-noeabi.tar.bz2 crux-arm-uclibc-rootfs-2.6.tar.bz2 toolchain-uclibc-2.6-noeabi.tar.bz2 toolchain-uclibc-2.6.tar.bz2 and locations for stored packages: http://crux-arm.nu/pkg/2.6/ http://crux-arm.nu/pkg/2.6-noeabi/ http://crux-arm.nu/pkg/uclibc-2.6/ http://crux-arm.nu/pkg/uclibc-2.6-noeabi/ Comments? Regards, -- Jose V Beneyto | http://sepen.mine.nu/