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

Re: klibc only initramfs

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:02:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> writes:
> > Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> I googled a bit and found this old mail about a klibc only initramfs:
> >> 
> >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2006/07/msg00400.html
> >> 
> >> I would really like to do this and it has been close to 4 years since
> >> that mail. But it doesn't look like there has been much progress or not
> >> in the right direction. Looking at my initramfs I see:


> >> Could we build stripped down versions of those tools (and libs as
> >> required) build against klibc? I certainly see no need for ncurses in my
> >> initramfs. Building a klibc based initramfs that then includes libc6
> >> (and even busybox) as well seems rather stupid. One without klibc would
> >> be smaller then.
> >
> > May I ask this question the other way around:
> >
> > Why maintain two sets of tools and libraries while one set is more
> > than enough already?  Why we need/want klibc to start with, while
> > regular glibc and regular tools do the work just fine?


> The reason would be size. I don't see anything else there.

How about another idea: take advantage of our switch to eglibc and offer
a stripped-down (no i18n, unicode, funky string handling, whatever)
flavour of glibc which could be used in place for this.  Another
use-case might be the udeb for debian-installer (though I guess i18n is
important there).

Maybe this has been pondered already or maybe it is already in place,
CCing -glibc.


Reply to: