------- Forwarded message follows ------- From: Eric Wolzak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Ray Olszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Leaf-devel] should LEAF cut over to uClibc? (was: Re: [Leaf-devel] Announcement: LEAF 2.4.16 + Shorewall 1.2.2) Date sent: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:04:12 +0100 Forgot to include the list :) sorry Hello Ray, and all others
I was also thinking about compiling to uClibc, but due to lack of time and experience it stayed in the planning phase ;( > At 07:11 PM 1/22/02 +0100, Ewald Wasscher wrote: > >Luis.F.Correia wrote: > [...] > >>If we drop support for the ancient glibc-2.0.7, will we still able to > >>use the floppy versions? > >> > >That will become a bit more difficult. I don't have any exact numbers, > >but I estimate that glibc 2.2.x will take around 225-250 kb more > >diskspace than glibc 2.0.7. That why I've been mentioning uClibc for the > >last few months. Unfortunately not all programs will compile > >out-of-the-tarball with uClibc, but I think enough programs do to build > >a decent base system for leaf. For some extra programs glibc will still > >be needed, but much of that fancy stuff probably won't fit on a floppy > >anyway. > > Good answer, and I think one that can begin to guide the eventual decision. > > At some point, LEAF-on-a-floppy should switch from glibc 2.0.7 to uClibc. > When? When the stuff that usually is included on actual floppy versions of > LEAF can run compiled against uClibc. > > Looking at what *Stein and Oxygen floppies have historically included is a > good way to make concrete the terms "enough programs ... to build a decent > base system" versus "some extra programs". > > To judge from the actual 1680 images I have looked at in the past, "enough" > needs to include the programs normally in about a half-dozen packages. From > *memory*, this is, I think, the core list: As far as I understood uClibc can compile to most of the things glibc can. Looking in the /lib directory there are still a few others library. So I compiled a ldd and tried this out on most of the "usual programms" to see which of them really needs a "different library" > root.lrp (of course; including "ip") Most of root can probably be compiled > dhcp.lrp (the daemon) > dhclient.lrp (for external dynamic connections > pppoe.lrp (or however Ken packages it) after switching to 2.4er kernel this is no longer necessary > ppp.lrp (for dialup connections and pppoe) I couldn't even get the newest version get compiled on a debian box. > sshd.lrp (for remote maintenance) AFAIK this won't compile under uClibc. (crypting functions) > dnscache.lrp (for DNS forwarding) > weblet.lrp (for remote configuration/monitoring) this is a script, only ash dependent no libs. > (I think all the add-in firewall packages are entirely script based so do > not depend on any particular version of the core library.) > I may have the details wrong, and I would encourage others to suggest > edditions to or deletions from this list. But I think discussing the cutover > in terms of actual packages is better than trying to decide whether "enough" > apps will work with uClibc or not. For the programms that are needed but don't compile completely against uClibc, somebody more experienced in the "compiling business" might compile against uClibc dynamically and link the few remaining routines perhaps statical. > In considering this issue, please remember that David has done some nice > work cutting glibc-2.2.x down to a size that can be used on Oxygen floppies. > We should not dismiss the possibility of additional work in this area. I'm > not getting a good sense form the uClibc list of how much the Lineo layoffs > (last summer) have slowed work on it, but I think we need to remain open to > all the plausible options. Agreed Eric Wolzak http://leaf.sf.net/devel/ericw ------- End of forwarded message ------- _______________________________________________ Leaf-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-user
