DSL Tips and Tricks :: easier way to compile stuff for DSL



Symlinks would save space.. But how will your extension be different from gcc1-with-libs for example, which already enables compiling on dsl?
Well, it would be a uci rather than dsl/unc and it would be compiled on dsl rather than (I think) made from debs.
Another compile question...

I noticed that I get two sets of executables with binutils/gcc, for example:

/bin/ld
/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld

The file sizes appear to be the same - are they the same, or is one optimised for i686 rather than i386?

I also get:

/bin/gcc
/bin/i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc

again, are they the same?
They are the same. But for DSL you ought to compile for i486 (--host=i486-pc-linux-gnu --target=i486-pc-linux-gnu --with-arch=i486)

Aren't you contradicting yourself? I mean, you compile on a Sarge debootstrap, not DSL? Or have I mixed up somewhere?
Quote
Aren't you contradicting yourself? I mean, you compile on a Sarge debootstrap, not DSL? Or have I mixed up somewhere?

My starting point was to load a bunch of sarge debs (not a sarge bootstrap) in order to be able to compile gcc, glibc, etc to /opt/build and make an extension.

Next I rebooted, loaded the extension made above and used this to again compile gcc, glibc, etc to /opt/compile. Maybe this step was uneccessary but now I have a compile extension that was itself compiled on dsl

Quote
They are the same. But for DSL you ought to compile for i486 (--host=i486-pc-linux-gnu --target=i486-pc-linux-gnu --with-arch=i486)

If they are the same, which version should be deleted?

Would --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu --target=i486-pc-linux-gnu --with-arch=i486 make more sense? Is anybody going to compile with a 486?
Next Page...
original here.