I looked briefly into uClibc and newlibc, but, mostly, I want to get to
glibc-2.2.x, so that users can much more easily compile stuff for it,
uClibc would be less compatible and more difficult than libc5, the
opposite from where I want to go. It would be harder for people to
compile and link stuff, and lots of stuff wouldn't work with a relatively
immature and slimmed-down c library. My intention is to eventually find
ways to get 2.2.x or even 2.1.x to fit... -Tom
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Nicholas Knight wrote:
> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 09:22:34 -0700
> From: Nicholas Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [tomsrtbt] uClibc?
>
> Has any consideration been given to using uClibc instead of libc5 in order
> to reduce library size?
> http://cvs.uclinux.org/uClibc.html
>
