Re: [Aloofix-devel] Success

[Aloof S. <alo...@gm...>]

Matt,

Regarding the ipkg-utils problem with 2.4 vs. 2.5. Based on a quick
check of the package, I'm guessing you're running python v.2.4.
I'll update the recipe to be more tolerant of different versions of
python. I'll either check the version of python or simply use a
wildcard when copying.
It seems a bit silly for ipkg-utils to create the directory based on
the python version, but what the hey - I've done worse before. :-)

If you're willing to provide details on glibc and gcc versions on your
ubuntu and fedora 6 box, as well as the the options you added to the
build, I'll take a look and see if this is something that should be
included in the build recipes. I'm working on improving the build
isolation, which would theoretically insulate from this type of distro
variation, but it will take some time for that to bear any fruit...

Regarding my use of glibc rather than uclibc. My first experiments
were done with uclibc, but I switched to glibc. The primary reason for
going with glibc was to make it easier to add other packages on top of
the distro. While I'm making a point of keeping things minimalist,
this seems to be one of those times when it might not make to be too
aggressive.  I imagine ipkg would work with uclibc, but there are lots
of packages out there that assume glibc. It was a hard decision to
make.

Regarding your kind comment on my makefile recipes. Thanks. What you
see is a combination of my own preferences and concepts I've liked
over the years. I prefer to do all builds from within make. Some
embedded build tools are strongly script based. There are pieces that
I'm not entirely pleased with, primarily with how the ipkg metadata
files are created, but fixing it is on the todo list.

I'm glad to hear to were able to build it. It's still early in the
development, so the build hasn't been exposed to many platforms - I'm
sure there are some inappropriate assumptions. :-)

-- 
thx,
Aloof Schipperke
http://aloofarchitecture.blogspot.com/