Re: Should you use dietlibc for installation and rescue disks?
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 02:15:30PM +0200, Abraham vd Merwe wrote:
> I'm maintaining dietlibc already so there's no need to worry about that.
Well, you still have to worry about twio distinct implementations. But if
that's what you like to work on, more power to you ;)
> Also, dietlibc IS a lot smaller than glibc so it is definitely an option.
> Although Hurd is not supported, ARM, Sparc, PowerPC, i386, etc is all
> supported. Also busybox et al works fine with it.
I realize that. My main point is that if you decide to use it, please make
sure that the whole building process doesn't depend on it (so that the Hurd
people can plug in their glibc and special tricks to make it smaller than it
is by default). Keep it modular and we are cool. My other point is that you
should not hope for a port of dietlibc on the Hurd, because some really
critical parts of the Hurd system are implemented in the C library (rather
than the kernel or servers).
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org firstname.lastname@example.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org email@example.com