[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: the next step

On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 06:08:39PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Oooh, uclibc.  That's a good idea.
> > 
> > In fact, that's a VITAL idea.
> > 
> > Joey, please remember that some architectures (I'm thinking powerpc
> > here, and at least two more) do not support library reduction.  libc on
> > a floppy is not an option.
> I've never been given a good reason for why reduction doesn't work on
> some architectures besides "it just doesn't seem to work". Sigh.

To be honest, I've never been given a really good explanation as to why
libc reduction works in our current setup, period.  I spent a while
trying to make it work on powerpc and gave up in bewilderment.

> I agree uclibc sounds like a good idea. It needs more investigation
> though: does it work on all architectures? Does it support anything
> we'll need to do? Is it painful to use? Is it small enough? (It seems to
> build a 415k libc.a here, which seems a little large.)

I do wish there was some way we could get everything that needs to be
(executable) in the very minimum install into a single binary and
static link it.  Then we could use glibc, or uclibc, or even newlib...
barring that, a small shared libc it may have to be.


/--------------------------------\  /--------------------------------\
|       Daniel Jacobowitz        |__|        SCS Class of 2002       |
|   Debian GNU/Linux Developer    __    Carnegie Mellon University   |
|         dan@debian.org         |  |       dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu      |
\--------------------------------/  \--------------------------------/

Reply to: