[I386-uclibc-devel] Re: question on hurd-i386 Debian architecture

[Pjotr Kourzanov]

Riku Voipio wrote:

>>>[2] http://www.emdebian.org/slind.html
>>>      
>>>
> 
>  
>
>>This one looks dead.
>>    
>>
>
>I understand we live in a gentoo-driven 0-day bleeding edge culture, but
>this is quite spectacular deducment. SLIND was published exactly two
>weeks ago in FOSDEM and it is already dead? 
>
>  
>
>>>...and i386-uclibc[3] alioth project, which is quite staganant ATM 
>>>and hasn't selected arch name yet.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>>[3] http://alioth.debian.org/projects/i386-uclibc/
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>There were no updates to this one since october. Is it still alive?
>>    
>>
>
>I already said it was stagnant, please pay attention. I brought it into
>attention since it makes more sense to revive a old project than to
>start a completly new one.
>
>
>  
>
I am not starting a new project. I want to see support for i386-uclibc in
standard Debian packages. So far, I have patches to a fair amount of
essential packages, most of which are trivial. This gives me some confidence
that we can just add i386-uclibc as a supported architecture, along with
arm-uclibc, mipsel-uclibc etc.

Also, looking at 
http://cvs.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/?cvsroot=i386-uclibc
I see only binutils and gcc. In the other thread "cross-compiling Debian 
packages"
I already mentioned that binutils and gcc are trivial to retarget 
nowadays. The tricky
bit is patching all those 25411 packages...