On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 11:01, Mike Noyes wrote: > On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 10:39, Richard Doyle wrote: > > On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 08:30, Eric Spakman wrote: > > > I don't know if uClibc is the way to go for LEAF, but it's rappidly evolving. > > > Glibc 2.0.7 is not maintained and Glibc 2.2.x is just to big to fit on a floppy. > > > > If enough of us use uClibc-based LEAF packages, perhaps there should be > > a uClibc branch in the LEAF package repository. One problem is that new > > uClibc versions are released fairly frequently; perhaps we could > > standardize on the current release (0.9.12), and provide new branches > > for new releases. > > Richard, > I'd prefer a single uclibc tree in bin/packages. We can specify the > version used in the commit message.
Sounds workable. > The other possibility is static > complies. I thought someone said that uClibc static binaries were > actually smaller than ones compiled dynamically. Is this correct? I doubt it, but haven't done any tests. If true, I'd happily save space by statically compiling all my binaries, but it sounds too much like a free lunch. > > Note: we already have some uClibc static packages. I currently plan on > adding them to our bin/packages/nolibc tree. I like the idea of separate bin/packages/nolibc and bin/packages/uclibc trees. > > -- > Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://sourceforge.net/users/mhnoyes/ > http://leaf-project.org/ -Richard ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Stuff, things, and much much more. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
