[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       busybox
Subject:    RE: [BusyBox] tinylogin built vs. uClibc
From:       Tom Cameron <TCameron () stmarysbank ! com>
Date:       2001-02-25 15:21:15
[Download RAW message or body]

DUH!!!
    Wow, now I feel STUPID!  I was reading that section over, and over
again, and it just didn't strike me.  Wow...that was stupid.  Well, thanks
so much, Erik!  Been a great help.  ; )

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Andersen
To: Tom Cameron
Cc: BusyBox; uclibc@busybox.net
Sent: 2/24/01 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [BusyBox] tinylogin built vs. uClibc

On Fri Feb 23, 2001 at 06:12:34PM -0500, Tom Cameron wrote:
> Hello all,
> 	When building TinyLogin, I chose to build vs. the uClibc
libraries.
> Obviously, it also uses the libcrypt library, but I was wondering why
it

Perhaps it is obvious that you need libcrypt with uClibc.  But you
don't.
Quoting from the Makefile:
    # GNU libc needs libcrypt.  Everything else wants this disabled...
    #LIBRARIES = -lcrypt

uClibc has an implementation of crypt(3) builtin so there is no need for
any
external libraries.  So in this case, you should not be enabling
libcrypt.  It
should only be enabled when compiling with glibc.  This is what you
should see
with tinylogin compiled up properly with uClibc:

    [andersen@slag tinylogin]$ ldd ./tinylogin
            libuClibc.so.1 => /lib/libuClibc.so.1 (0x4000c000)

I just committed a small change to the Makefile to make it more obvious
what
the setting for uClibc are.  I hope that helps.  I do wish I could think
if a
better way to do this (it would sure be simpler if glibc didn't have a
separate
libcrypt). 

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen   email:  andersen@lineo.com
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]