Issues with LFS glibc-2.3.3 tarball

Ken Moffat ken at
Wed Feb 11 06:52:27 PST 2004

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Christopher James Coleman wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004, Robert Connolly wrote:
> > This is sorta unrelated to the glibc situation, but I'm wondering what people
> > think about developing hlfs for embeded platforms, using uclibc. Uclibc
> > claims to have SSP and fPIE support, and provides an alternitive to anyone
> > disenchanted with glibc. I own an Ipaq to develop on and it should be
> > feasable to get Pax running on it. The build procedures would not be platform
> > specific, it would work just as well on an x86. LFS'ers might be equaly
> > interested in developing Uclibc without fpie/ssp. Using busybox would change
> > the book a bit but shouldn't be imposible to work with, uclibc also provides
> > a buildroot package that should make things fairly easy.
> I am definitely interested in uClibc research, with a view to using it on
> any platform under HLFS. Also, I hope to get started working on anything I
> can help with for HLFS this weekend. I have been really busy recently, but
> have some free time now. Let me know what you need doing.
> - chris

 I think uClibc is interesting, but I'm trying to wait for it to settle
down a bit more.  Busybox is good when you need it, but in my opinion
it's a bit sparse (on your development platform).  The build process is
quite different, I haven't tried buildroot, but I believe that to get
anything approaching a "pure" build you might have to build it twice.

 A year or so ago it definitely couldn't build glibc (thought it might
be a way to build a small recovery system from which to build regular
lfs), I keep meaning to find time to try that afresh with pure lfs, and
there were also issues on some of the packages (e.g. tar built, but
seemed not to include all the files I expected when creating an archive).

 For the moment, it's a bit remote from LFS itself.

Brighton tops UK Jedi league

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list