On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 10:27:52AM +0100, Alexander Dahl wrote:
> Hei hei,
>
> On Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 10:49:49PM +0100, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> > But are there any active uClibc users?
>
> Do you mean in general or specifically with ptxdist? As far as ptxdist
> is concerned, we considered it once for a project with very few RAM,
> but didn't have time to evaluate it then. So no experience from my
> side for ptxdist with uclibc.
>
> However I use it on a day to day basis on other projects based on
> buildroot (namely fli4l).
I just checked my 10 years old project. Current kernel size is few
hundreds KiB greater than 2.6.12 plus uClibc size. That makes me feel
a bit hopeless. However I still think there is some value in pissing
against wind, just because all progress depends on unreasonable men.
It seems uClibc-ng didn't dump out anything present in uClibc, so
maintaining both does make little sense. I would not also rename
uclibc.make file and pretend uClibc is still alive in its uClibc-ng
incarnation as I hope it will end up the very same way as (e)glibc
story. Counterproposals?
ladis
_______________________________________________
ptxdist mailing list
ptxdist@pengutronix.de
