On 01/23/2010 08:01 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
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
There is at least one advantage. The build system allows to select
groups of functions to compile or not, for example network, ipv6,
charsets, locales, maths, wide-chars, regex, nis, and others.
But maybe not necessary for initramfs.
--
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera )
http://www.djgera.com.ar
KeyID: 0x1B8C330D
Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D
