On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 20:37, Jacques Nilo wrote:
> Le Mardi 17 Septembre 2002 19:18, Ewald Wasscher a �crit :
> Ewald:
> Following on this and the previous thread on buiding Bering from source tree,
> please feel free to test that or any other approach to test your ideas on
> building Bering from source since apparently their an interest for it.
Ah great to hear this! I will do so after (or paralell with) the next
release of Dachstein.
> I am ready to help you on this project (I won't have much time to work on it
> myself and even if I feel that there will be many questions/obstacles along
> the way, I think it might be worth trying).
Nice to hear this. I'll appreciate any help, also if it isn't much.
> One key question is the development environnement to be chosen. I understand
> that you consider slink as being outdated
You understand that correctly.
> which is true but which is still
> the only way to have a single floppy based distro.
I don't agree with you that it's the _only_ way. But maybe we can keep
glibc-2.0.7 as an option. I know you have been wary of uClibc and other
c-libraries targeted at embedded systems in the past, but I think it is
possible to have a base system with uClibc (and AFAIK all of the
programs on the Bering floppy can be built with it). If you want to
discuss the use of uClibc maybe we can move that to another thread?
Furthermore there is still some room left for space saving in Bering:
- mkfs.minix from asmutils.
- switch to ash from busybox
- ? development branch of busybox is smaller
- compile iptables with the extensions linked in statically.
> I know that some users
> have switched to other media but I have the impression it is not the
> majority (Mike: what about a poll on this on the leaf site ?)
Yes! Polls! Polls! Polls! (What branch do you use? What hardware? What
purpose? What do you want added/changed to leaf? Would you switch to a
glibc 2.2 based leaf even if it would be bigger? etc)
> Some recent programs (e.g. freeswan userland stuff) have to be patched to
> compile cleanly with slink.
That is one reason I don't like using glibc 2.0.x. The major other ones
are the not exactly known but almost certainly present security holes.
> Would you be ready to do that on - say - a slink and woody based
> environnement ?
If necessary. But I think I prefer a combined uClibc/glibc 2.x.y
approach where x=2 or x=1.
> Suggestions /comments from the list ?
Yes please, give them.
Ewald
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: AMD - Your access to the experts
on Hammer Technology! Open Source & Linux Developers, register now
for the AMD Developer Symposium. Code: EX8664
http://www.developwithamd.com/developerlab
_______________________________________________
leaf-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
