2010/1/13 Hops Error, Line 21, alcoholi.c <[email protected]>: > After a little bit of experience getting an eglibc-based cross > compiler working (both with instructions from CLFS and some hints in > eglibc's mailing list), I was wondering if there was ever going to be > an eglibc ticket for blfs. > > I'm not asking this for political reasons, and it would be great if > the words "Drepper" and "Ulrich" were absent from this conversation > outside of this e-mail. What attracted me to eglibc was the fact that > it's less monolithic than glibc while still aiming at compatibility > with glibc. I run off an 8-gig USB stick, and occasionally that 8 gigs > turns into 256 megs if I step on something or leave something in my > pocket for our apartment's broken dryers to melt, or otherwise > physically break my stick and return to my back-up system. The idea of > actually being able to compile and build programs again that actually > work in one of my "mother" systems, was just too good to pass up. > Small + c library = good thing in my book. > My understanding is that eglibc is just glibc "in a more appropriate form for distros to use", typically with "sensible" fixes applied. On x86, and probably x86_64, that seems unlikely to make much, if any, difference.
I don't understand your "less monolithic than glibc" comment - the upstream is the same, but eglibc *should* be easier for a distro to use (if I've understood articles at e.g. lwn). But surely, there will not be a valid eglibc ticket for _B_lfs : if you rebuiild libc in an LFS-family system, you should rebuild the whole system. ( Yes, I know that in the old days of glibc-2.3.x some people managed to upgrade across various values of x). ĸen -- After tragedy, and farce, "OMG poneys!" -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
