Charles Steinkuehler wrote: >> I do like the idea. But I wonder if it will be worth the extra space >>this takes when we switch to a decent libc finally (if ever). But of >>course you are using uClibc..... BTW, while we are at it, Charles, how >>do you feel about a uClibc based version of Dachstein? I've been playing >>with this a bit lately and it seems doable. The worst problem was >>finding an ssh version that builds with uClibc (only lsh does). >> > >I don't have a problem with a uClibc version of Dachstein, but I'm not sure >I want to make uClibc the only available library. >
uClibc and glibc can be used together without a problem. Everyone who develops with uClibc does so and it's very convenient. >I'd probably prefer a >system where uClibc was used to make some specific pieces of code small (and >probably statically linked, like a boot-loader), > This may be usefull, but it does add to the _total_ system size. So for the proverbial one floppy system this would be worse than just a normal libc. I put together a bootloader which did nothing but load root.lrp for Dachstein, and it would use 69k of diskspace. Statically linking busybox with uClibc adds about 60k to busybox' size (for the Dachstein configuration, no NFS support for mount/umount). >or perhaps something like >using uClibc for the core firewalling functions (ie the packages on >Dachstein-Floppy or their equivelant are all compiled against uClibc), while >folks with more space can load a modern libc from CD or HDD. > That sounds like a VERY good idea to me. > > >I'd prefer to use a standard libc for most runtime applications, if the >overall system size can be kept under control. > For sure that would be easier. But to quote Arne: "its more a hobby for me to get things small" Ewald Wasscher _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
