On 11/23/07, Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And I know very little about uclibc, so I'd really prefer if somebody > more familiar with that system would do the report.
As fuse becomes more and more popular and it is a base component of the kernel, it should be developed/tested/supported with uclibc, klibc and glibc taken into account. You are going to see more and more initramfs or embedded configurations with fuse. > > Also please notice that the fact you support backward compatibility in > > fuse makes your output larger... So maybe just add > > --enable-backward-compatibility to your configure script will solve > > all this... Usually this should not be enabled at all. > > It's basically mandatory for "normal" usage. People don't want their > apps to break just because they upgraded a library. For source based distributions such as Gentoo, source based RPMs and DEBs, you don't need this at all... As you always compile/recompile the packages for the last interface. So making the library as small as possible is also a goal. There are older simpler ways to keep your ABI, such as the old plain don't change the interface, only add new functions way. This does not use ELF specific features, is platform independent and libc independent. Best Regards, Alon Bar-Lev. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ ntfs-3g-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ntfs-3g-devel
