> arne @ loopback . org wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >i spent my last two weeks in playing around with my gcc > >again, and made a > >first test version of a text/menu based version of a config > >frontend for lrp > >(it currently works for my version for kernel 2.4, based on > >lrp 2.9.8 and > >soon uClibc). > > > I've been playing with uClibc too lately, and with a little help most > binaries build with uClibc (or I chose an alternative). > Perhaps we could > share some experience through the list ?
<snip> > >It should be possible to get this even smaller, as size was not so > >importend for this test hack. > >I would just like to know, what people think. > > I do like the idea. But I wonder if it will be worth the extra space > this takes when we switch to a decent libc finally (if ever). But of > course you are using uClibc..... BTW, while we are at it, Charles, how > do you feel about a uClibc based version of Dachstein? I've been playing > with this a bit lately and it seems doable. The worst problem was > finding an ssh version that builds with uClibc (only lsh does). > > Ewald Wasscher A list of apps that work with uClibc is at http://uclibc.org/uClibc-apps.html I've long thought uClibc and Busybox could be the foundation of a useful single-floppy LRP-derived router. I've played with this off-and-on, and hope to find enough time in the next few months to produce something that actually works. Dachstein and Oxygen are fine projects with potential beyond simple routing and firewalling, but I'm more interested in a minimalist distribution. I do have a couple of concerns about uClibc. Glibc has been around for a long time, and presumably will continue to exist. I'm not as sure about uClibc; Lineo dropped its support for the project, but Eric Anderson is still maintaining it. I also don't know how to evaluate the security of uClibc, as opposed to glibc. -Richard _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
