On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Thomas Bächler <[email protected]> wrote: > Tobias Powalowski schrieb: >> >> Now comes the point, to achive this, mdadm will be needed in initramfs >> which means having a 900k static binary in early boot sequence. >> (raid-partitions hook already uses this binary) > > I am really annoyed by the fact that almost nothing builds against klibc. > > Wouldn't it be easier to switch to uclibc and busybox? Both are much more > powerful and we wouldn't need static binaries for lvm, cryptsetup or mdadm. > We would also have much less problems with all the ABI changes that happen > with klibc. > > I thought we needed a complete toolchain for that, but Jan claimed that it > is possible to use our normal gcc and binutils for that.
I would be in support of this, as I have seen some of the headaches you have had to deal with when it comes to klibc. Assuming the initrd images wouldn't be insanely sized, I don't think this is a problem. The only real point of klibc is that it is much much smaller than a full-blown glibc, correct? -Dan
