[ptxdist] Future plans for uClibc-ng?

[ptxdist] Future plans for uClibc-ng?

[Bryan Hundven]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 159 bytes --]

Hello,

I'm curious to know if ptxdist/OSELAS.Toolchain plans to support
uClibc-ng in the future?

http://www.uclibc-ng.org/

Cheers,

-Bryan

Happy New Year!

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 91 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de

Re: [ptxdist] Future plans for uClibc-ng?

[Ladislav Michl]

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:48:31PM -0800, Bryan Hundven wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm curious to know if ptxdist/OSELAS.Toolchain plans to support
> uClibc-ng in the future?
> 
> http://www.uclibc-ng.org/

with half a year without commit to uClib git I'm considering it a dead
project (I failed to verify mailing list activity as neither Firefox
nor IE (!) allowed me to enter archives). uClibc-ng should be relatively
easy to support as config system remained the same... Just tried and
succeded. But are there any active uClibc users?

	ladis

_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de

Re: [ptxdist] Future plans for uClibc-ng?

[Bryan Hundven]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 759 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 10:49:49PM +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:48:31PM -0800, Bryan Hundven wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I'm curious to know if ptxdist/OSELAS.Toolchain plans to support
> > uClibc-ng in the future?
> > 
> > http://www.uclibc-ng.org/
> 
> with half a year without commit to uClib git I'm considering it a dead
> project (I failed to verify mailing list activity as neither Firefox
> nor IE (!) allowed me to enter archives). uClibc-ng should be relatively
> easy to support as config system remained the same... Just tried and
> succeded. But are there any active uClibc users?

Well, I use it for a few platforms. And I get a lot of requests for it's
support on crosstool-ng.

-Bryan

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 91 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de

Re: [ptxdist] Future plans for uClibc-ng?

[Robert Schwebel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1629 bytes --]

On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 06:02:37PM -0800, Bryan Hundven wrote:
> > > I'm curious to know if ptxdist/OSELAS.Toolchain plans to support
> > > uClibc-ng in the future?
> > > 
> > > http://www.uclibc-ng.org/
> > 
> > with half a year without commit to uClib git I'm considering it a dead
> > project (I failed to verify mailing list activity as neither Firefox
> > nor IE (!) allowed me to enter archives). uClibc-ng should be relatively
> > easy to support as config system remained the same... Just tried and
> > succeded. But are there any active uClibc users?
> 
> Well, I use it for a few platforms. And I get a lot of requests for it's
> support on crosstool-ng.

We also use uclibc, especially for uCLinux systems. A few years ago, we
mainlined Cortex-M3 support. It never gained business traction so far,
because the BoM for a system is more expensive and less powerful than
the cheaper systems with mmu (like Atmel 9x25, TI AM335, FSL MX23 etc).
We still maintain EFM32 in the kernel.

However, these days we are seeing more and more Cortex-A cpus emerging
with Cortex-M coprocessors. With these devices, running Linux on both
cores is a real option (as far as I know, this is already implemented
for Vybrid).

So uClibc stays relevant and will continue to be in OSELAS.Toolchain.

rsc
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 173 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 91 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de

Re: [ptxdist] Future plans for uClibc-ng?

[Alexander Dahl]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 755 bytes --]

Hei hei,

On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 10:49:49PM +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> But are there any active uClibc users?

Do you mean in general or specifically with ptxdist? As far as ptxdist
is concerned, we considered it once for a project with very few RAM,
but didn't have time to evaluate it then. So no experience from my
side for ptxdist with uclibc. 

However I use it on a day to day basis on other projects based on
buildroot (namely fli4l).

Greets
Alex

-- 
»With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, 
the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all 
irrevocably.« (Jean-Luc Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie)
*** GnuPG-FP: 02C8 A590 7FE5 CA5F 3601  D1D5 8FBA 7744 CC87 10D0 ***

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 91 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de

Re: [ptxdist] Future plans for uClibc-ng?

[Bryan Hundven]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1746 bytes --]

Robert,

On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 10:27:26AM +0100, Robert Schwebel wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 06:02:37PM -0800, Bryan Hundven wrote:
> > > > I'm curious to know if ptxdist/OSELAS.Toolchain plans to support
> > > > uClibc-ng in the future?
> > > > 
> > > > http://www.uclibc-ng.org/
> > > 
> > > with half a year without commit to uClib git I'm considering it a dead
> > > project (I failed to verify mailing list activity as neither Firefox
> > > nor IE (!) allowed me to enter archives). uClibc-ng should be relatively
> > > easy to support as config system remained the same... Just tried and
> > > succeded. But are there any active uClibc users?
> > 
> > Well, I use it for a few platforms. And I get a lot of requests for it's
> > support on crosstool-ng.
> 
> We also use uclibc, especially for uCLinux systems. A few years ago, we
> mainlined Cortex-M3 support. It never gained business traction so far,
> because the BoM for a system is more expensive and less powerful than
> the cheaper systems with mmu (like Atmel 9x25, TI AM335, FSL MX23 etc).
> We still maintain EFM32 in the kernel.

Specifically, I still mess around with the EFM32 port, which is why this
was an interest. Although I realize it is not a focus of pengutronix.

But being able to turn on and off parts of uClibc/uClibc-ng also helps to
shrink the user-space footprint on other systems as well.

> However, these days we are seeing more and more Cortex-A cpus emerging
> with Cortex-M coprocessors. With these devices, running Linux on both
> cores is a real option (as far as I know, this is already implemented
> for Vybrid).
> 
> So uClibc stays relevant and will continue to be in OSELAS.Toolchain.

Indeed.

-Bryan

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 91 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de

Re: [ptxdist] Future plans for uClibc-ng?

[Ladislav Michl]

On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 10:27:52AM +0100, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> Hei hei,
> 
> On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 10:49:49PM +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> > But are there any active uClibc users?
> 
> Do you mean in general or specifically with ptxdist? As far as ptxdist
> is concerned, we considered it once for a project with very few RAM,
> but didn't have time to evaluate it then. So no experience from my
> side for ptxdist with uclibc. 
> 
> However I use it on a day to day basis on other projects based on
> buildroot (namely fli4l).

I just checked my 10 years old project. Current kernel size is few
hundreds KiB greater than 2.6.12 plus uClibc size. That makes me feel
a bit hopeless. However I still think there is some value in pissing
against wind, just because all progress depends on unreasonable men.

It seems uClibc-ng didn't dump out anything present in uClibc, so
maintaining both does make little sense. I would not also rename
uclibc.make file and pretend uClibc is still alive in its uClibc-ng
incarnation as I hope it will end up the very same way as (e)glibc
story. Counterproposals?

	ladis

_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de

Re: [ptxdist] Future plans for uClibc-ng?

[Michael Olbrich]

On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 12:10:44PM +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 10:27:52AM +0100, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 10:49:49PM +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> > > But are there any active uClibc users?
> > 
> > Do you mean in general or specifically with ptxdist? As far as ptxdist
> > is concerned, we considered it once for a project with very few RAM,
> > but didn't have time to evaluate it then. So no experience from my
> > side for ptxdist with uclibc. 
> > 
> > However I use it on a day to day basis on other projects based on
> > buildroot (namely fli4l).
> 
> I just checked my 10 years old project. Current kernel size is few
> hundreds KiB greater than 2.6.12 plus uClibc size. That makes me feel
> a bit hopeless. However I still think there is some value in pissing
> against wind, just because all progress depends on unreasonable men.
> 
> It seems uClibc-ng didn't dump out anything present in uClibc, so
> maintaining both does make little sense. I would not also rename
> uclibc.make file and pretend uClibc is still alive in its uClibc-ng
> incarnation as I hope it will end up the very same way as (e)glibc
> story. Counterproposals?

I haven't looked at uClibc-ng yet. It the build-system the same Kconfig
based stuff? If it is, then I agree. We can just add an extra URL to
uclibc.make and the version and config is specified in the ptxconfig file.
I guess we could support both, but I'll probably just use the latest
uClibc-ng for the one uClibc Toolchain that is currently defined.

Michael

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de