David Douthitt wrote:
>>I'd vote for 2.2. It may be bigger, but 2.1 will be unmaintained rather
>>soon I'm afraid. So when we choose for glibc 2.1 we might end up with
>>the same mess as we have for glibc 2.0 now in a year or so. Unless one
>>of us is capable of backporting security fixes 2.2 is the way to go I
>>think.
>>
>
>I tend to agree, though I've already got 2.1.3 going. Upgrading
>libraries is a hassle - biggest of which is compiling the libraries
>from scratch - but I imagine I'll be doing it soon enough.
>
Well, that should be doable I think. But compiling it takes ages.
>>That makes me wonder if anyone has seriously considered uClibc. It
>>probably has some limitations. One is of course that binaries compiled
>>with glibc won't run on a uClibc system.
>>
>
>That's one of the main reasons I went to glibc 2.1.3. No need to have
>to scrounge for old binaries; just load a current (now semi-current)
>distribution and use that.
>
If you want to copy binaries this is obviously an advantage. If you want
to compile your own stuff: with the recent gcc and binutils wrappers
that come with uClibc compiling is a breeze. And installing a uClibc
compile environtment is as easy, though some installation instructions
wouldn't hurt.
Ewald Wasscher
_______________________________________________
Leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
