On 23/01/10 20:39, Alexander Duscheleit wrote:
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.
There is really no advantage to using eglibc if you are on x86 or x86_64
systems. Debian will find eglibc appealing because they support all
sorts of platforms that are not particularly well supported by glibc.
Allan
