Re: [dev] sta.li progress

> > So moving towards that ideal, my first step would be some good
> > documentation or tools for gettign ABS to build static with bionic or
> > uClibc or whatever, and then a statically linked pacman repository.
> > But that's only for the hacked archlinux form of sta.li.
>
> That goes further than what I have in mind. There are no plans to
> re-use ABS at this point, but rather creating a mk-based ports
> collection.

Fair enough. I suggested ABS because it exists, works, is well documented,
and I'm semi-familiar with it. Something only 9base dependant would
be cooler though.

> > To do anything with sta.li, we need a static toolchain and good
> > documentation on using it in other systems. So, to my knowledge,
> > that involves a decent libc, and probably the ld wrapper from
> > project ideas. Anything else?
>
> We will need uclibc at the least, bionic or dietlibc can be used for
> certain tools that don't require a fully fledged libc, but we can't
> work around the fact that we will need uclibc.

Thats not so bad, especially if we can get 9base working with bionic.
(I just downloaded 9base and bionic to investigate.)
Is uClibc even license-compatible with 9base? LGPL and LPL, right?
 
> > Is the ld wrapper as simple as it sounds? Is it just just sneaking
> > foo.a out the back door when asked to build foo.so and then sneaking
> > foo.a in the back door when asked to link with foo.so? This is only
> > needed with retarded build scripts that explicitly check for .so output
> > right? Someone more skilled than I (possibly me after reading some
> > docs) could write a script to do that pretty easily I think.
>
> It is just that. Working around stupid autohell scripts. But
> it's not
> for the base system itself.

> 1. Demonstrate the ldwrapper idea for building webkit

I'll start reading some docs. This should be done in rc, right?
No promises.

> Help in the following areas is very welcome:
>
> 2. Demonstrate stand-alone static binaries that have been linked
> against bionic/x86.

Like 9base? DWM doesn't do anything bionic can't handle does it?
Getting a mk-based build of bionic should go with this I think.

What's the plan for the sta.li compiler, GCC?

> 3. Develop a mk based ports tree (that contains all optional non-
> base packages)

I know nothing. Sounds difficult.

> I would prefer to focus on the archlinux bits to bootstrap the core
> system in a static way.

I'm afraid I don't know what this means. I really should, considering I use
arch. I'll figure it out eventually.
Received on Mon Oct 11 2010 - 22:19:36 CEST