Hi, 2011/4/6 Bill Gatliff <[email protected]>:
> The problem I see with this is that compared with uClibc, glibc is > HUGE. I just can't see using glibc as part of an initramfs. The > risks of using uClibc in one place but glibc in the other are > completely manageable; the initramfs has much more limited > functionality, and doesn't need to chance much, so testing to a high > degree of confidence it before deployment is realistic. In Debian eglibc is used and it might well tunned for embedded, disabling some functionality, which makes it incompatible with glibc, so for the price of one eglibc, you get glibc and uClibc functinality. Commenting about how long the line was uClibc vs eglibc (tunned for embedded) with Bernhard, involved with uClibc effort, told me that some random guy was doing some tests and uClibc was heavily optimized for size and speed beating very much embedded libc. I have not seen comparisons, but it might be interesting to see a benchmark. > And any bootloader that has TCP/IP is too > sophisticated for me to feel comfortable using it. :) What about using Linux as bootloader? :-) > Emdebian is making that possible for me. But that's a topic for > another email. :) We are eager to listen more stories... :-) Best regards, -- Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-. "Our Sun unleashes tremendous flares expelling hot gas into the Solar System, which one day will disconnect us." -- Day DVB-T stop working nicely Video flare: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100510.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=w4Gnr+4wMK9N3K49HP�[email protected]
