Re: libc strategy
Quoting Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>:
> I've been spending the day playing with this. At a rough guess, about
> half of base compiles without too much hassle with the BSD libc (the
> main problem is usually having to link against the GNU getopt library)
[...]
> The packages left that are more "interesting" are:
[...]
> util-linux (Again hardly surprising. Again I'd guess that using the
> BSD versions would be easier)
In a fit of sheer insanity, I did "apt-get source util-linux" and
transfered the source to my NetBSD/sparc box to try compiling some
things. I'm happy to report that "banner" compiles and runs
flawlessly! :)
Actually, after your previous comment the one I wanted to try was
getopt (the command line version). It actually compiles, but issues a
warning that "getopt_long_only" was defined implicitly (uh oh), and of
course when it tries to link it fails.
Everything in text-utils compiles fine, and seems to work although I
didn't really test it too much. I'm going to bed now, before I do
something really stupid. [For the record, fdisk doesn't compile, so
I didn't get the chance to run it... :)]
--
GT <gt@dreamsmith.org> http://www.dreamsmith.org
"We don't receive wisdom; we must discover it for ourselves after a
journey that no one else can take for us or spare us." - Marcel Proust
Reply to: