On Thursday 08 January 2009 10:06:07 rhabarber1848 wrote: > Mike Wilson wrote: > > How are the chances that the glibc fallback code gets implemented in > uClibc?
Sounds like featureitis to me. (The whole point of uClibc is to be as small and simple as possible, otherwise we _would_ just be using glibc...) While I'm somewhat sympathetic to 2.4 being smaller than 2.6, it's also a six year old codebase. If 2.6 isn't a good replacement for 2.4 in new deployments yet, then 2.6 needs to be _fixed_. Rob _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
