On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:25:16 -0600 Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Did you mean ulibc? > No, not uClibc either. We're actually using glibc itself. Other > distros do this as well, as it DOES add a lot of flexibility Just out of curiosity. Was eglibc considered? Why? Why not? I can see, that maintaing just another libc only for minor space benefits in a short-lived initrd doesn't make a lot of sense, but Debian seems to think, that it could even be an all-out replacement for glibc in general. Jinks
