On Saturday 10 September 2005 18:19, Brandin Creech wrote:
> I'm curious if anyone has had any success in going "beyond LFS" by using
> uClibc instead of Glibc. I'm supposing that there will be some changes
> needed to the steps needed for building some of the applications mentioned
> in Beyond Linux from Scratch, but my understanding of uClibc is that it
> aims to be source-compatible with glibc, so that in theory, I could build
> all of the packages mentioned in BLFS without (too many) problems.
>
Can't help with this, but I know people here have used uClibc with LFS/BLFS so
I'm sure they will speak up.
> Before I make the attempt, though, I wanted to get any potential feedback
> from the users on this list. A potential pitfall that I understand is that
> uClib is likely to be less reliable than Glibc because most developers
> probably focus testing their code against glibc. Still, I would be
> interested in building a uClibc-based system all the way up to X.org, GTK,
> and Qt, if possible, and feel how it compares to the glibc-based
> distributions I'm used to.
>
But I can tell you from experience that even an ordinary LFS/BLFS running a
KDE desktop is quicker than the Debian system I used to use. So if the uClibc
thing doesn't work out, using LFS/BLFS is still a bit quicker than most
distro's.
Cheers,
John Gay
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
