On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 06:08:39PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Oooh, uclibc. That's a good idea.
> >
> > In fact, that's a VITAL idea.
> >
> > Joey, please remember that some architectures (I'm thinking powerpc
> > here, and at least two more) do not support library reduction. libc on
> > a floppy is not an option.
>
> I've never been given a good reason for why reduction doesn't work on
> some architectures besides "it just doesn't seem to work". Sigh.
To be honest, I've never been given a really good explanation as to why
libc reduction works in our current setup, period. I spent a while
trying to make it work on powerpc and gave up in bewilderment.
> I agree uclibc sounds like a good idea. It needs more investigation
> though: does it work on all architectures? Does it support anything
> we'll need to do? Is it painful to use? Is it small enough? (It seems to
> build a 415k libc.a here, which seems a little large.)
I do wish there was some way we could get everything that needs to be
(executable) in the very minimum install into a single binary and
static link it. Then we could use glibc, or uclibc, or even newlib...
barring that, a small shared libc it may have to be.
Dan
/--------------------------------\ /--------------------------------\
| Daniel Jacobowitz |__| SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer __ Carnegie Mellon University |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
\--------------------------------/ \--------------------------------/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
