From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guido =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mart=EDnez?= Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:19:40 -0300 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v5 1/3] busybox: disable nslookup applet In-Reply-To: <20150714185514.37730552@free-electrons.com> References: <1436886664-3206-1-git-send-email-guido@vanguardiasur.com.ar> <1436890174-23236-1-git-send-email-guido@vanguardiasur.com.ar> <20150714183126.3a0ed496@free-electrons.com> <20150714185514.37730552@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20150715171940.GA23491@fox> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Thomas, On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 06:55:14PM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > [...] > > I did a comparison between the uClibc_config.h of the OSELAS Cortex-M3 > toolchain and the uClibc_config.h of a uClibc toolchain built by > Buildroot, and there are quite a few differences in the configuration. > > First and foremost, OSELAS is using uClibc 0.9.33.2 with almost no > patches. And in Buildroot, we had to add a lot of patches to uClibc to > make it properly support a number of packages (which is also why we've > switched to uClibc-ng as the default C library). > > And then, the uClibc configuration itself is quite different: a number > of features that we enable by default in the Buildroot uClibc > configuration are not enabled in the OSELAS Cortex-M3 uClibc. So when > we will start adding the OSELAS Cortex-M3 toolchain in the > autobuilders, it will probably start showing a number of failures > caused by this uClibc version/configuration being quite different from > the usual Buildroot expectations. > > So, we've got two possibilities here: > > 1/ Just give up on the OSELAS toolchain, and focus on making Buildroot > capable of building a Cortex-M3 toolchain. > > 2/ Really add the toolchain anyway, but be prepared for some > additional work to handle all those issues. Since the Cortex-M3 is > noMMU, it means that a significant fraction of the packages are not > available, so maybe it will be more reasonable that I expect. But I > was in fact hoping to be able to add other OSELAS toolchains, even > for MMU capable platforms. But if they have such uClibc > configurations, we might be limited to using their glibc toolchains. > > What do you think? I have no problem with option 1. In fact, I was going to try to do it anyway even if the OSELAS toolchain got accepted. I'll start looking into it in detail and report back. I haven't done anything similar in the past so it might take me a while. Thanks to all who reviewed the patches! -- Guido Mart?nez, VanguardiaSur www.vanguardiasur.com.ar