Quote:
Originally Posted by geekmaster
I now have a mix of static and dynamic binaries in my k1_build folder, and when I chroot into it, some of the dynamics throw errors about missing or incompatible libraries. I really need a collection of all static arm binaries, but finding them is few and far between. I will need to build almost all tools from scratch it seems, just like everybody else seems to build either toolchains and/or complete root filesystems. And that is reported to take hours or days to build (depending on the speed of your desktop PC or target system).
|
You might find the buildroot project useful here -- you won't want the disk image it produces, but you can loopback-mount it and copy off heaps of stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekmaster
The windows folks have gone to extremes to assure backwards compatibility, but the linux folks just seem to think you will compile all your build tools (and/or root filesystems) from source for each project, it seems. Or so it seems...
|
This is more a description of the embedded world than the Linux world. uClibc in particular is explicit about providing almost no source or binary backward compatibility at all, but if you move out of the embedded world glibc is very strict about this, even preserving bug-compatibility in compatibility symbols via symbol versioning, as is X11 and other major system libraries like Qt (Gtk used to be good but is frankly taking the piss of late, ditching major features and breaking programs willy-nilly: as long as the formal ABI doesn't change, who cares if the entry points now do nothing? Nobody will care about that! Increasingly this is turning out to be true as this behaviour drives onetime library users to rewrite for Qt instead...)