> 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. 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), 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. I'd prefer to use a standard libc for most runtime applications, if the overall system size can be kept under control. Charles Steinkuehler http://lrp.steinkuehler.net http://c0wz.steinkuehler.net (lrp.c0wz.com mirror) _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
