From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 21:02:02 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Explicit dependencies on uclibc in makefiles In-Reply-To: References: <87a5b0800908110855g778df6aanbf9307ca69e676c9@mail.gmail.com> <87a5b0800908130719m79b677dbm1e3c12bd9dafddaf@mail.gmail.com> <20090813163709.044199e3@hcegtvedt.norway.atmel.com> Message-ID: <20090813210202.3340114c@surf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Le Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:43:27 -0300, Thiago A. Corr?a a ?crit : > Ah, ok. I never looked it up at the top Makefile. Well, then I guess > we could drop uclibc from all packages/* I'll have a closer look at this, but I think yes. > This actually should be done for the glibc support to work properly I > guess. Depends whether you're talking about glibc support in toolchains generated by Buildroot, or glibc support for external toolchains, generated with external tools (crosstool-ng, etc.) or downloaded from third parties (Codesourcery, vendor, etc.). The former is not supported by Buildroot at this time. The latter is supported, and the toolchain/external-toolchain/ext-tool.mk implements a uclibc: target, regardless of whether the C library of the external toolchain is uclibc or glibc. Sincerly, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com