VMiklos schrieb: > On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 08:47:43AM +0100, Wael Nasreddine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> I know about it, but looking at the revert patch, it wouldn't be *that* hard >> to >> port it to new versions of udev, I mean take a look at it[1]. >> > > yes, but using patches permanently that will never hit upstram is not > something we like to do ;) > > >> anyway It's too bad they droped udev support for klibc coz You really >> feel the difference when booting with initramfs/klibc or >> initrd/busybox, it's much faster >> > > any comparision between klibc and dietlibc? afaik udev works fine with > dietlibc without any patch > >
Well klibc was made for the kernel and it was planned to be pushed mainline. But because problems all the klibc patches got dropped and after this udev dropped support for it too. Klibc it may be kind faster but err I don't really care about some seconds more or less boot time. > udv / greetings, > VMiklos > > _______________________________________________ Frugalware-devel mailing list [email protected] http://frugalware.org/mailman/listinfo/frugalware-devel
