Re: Bug#811275: ITP: uclibc-ng -- uClibc-ng is an implementation of the standard C library that is much smaller than glibc, which makes it useful for embedded systems.
Hi Thorsten, Thorsten Glaser wrote, > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > > From a good friend I would expect some more positive feedback > > for my hobby project ;) > > I said, it has its niche, but I doubt it has a place > as a generic Debian package… libraries are generally > only packaged when something uses them, and C libra‐ > ries are hard. May be you didn't know the reason for the package. I'll try to use it for rebootstrap to build a complete Debian system based on uClibc-ng. So then "something" or even "everything" will use it ;) You can help doing some review of the package: http://downloads.uclibc-ng.org/debian/ best regards Waldemar
Re: Bug#811275: ITP: uclibc-ng -- uClibc-ng is an implementation of the standard C library that is much smaller than glibc, which makes it useful for embedded systems.
Hi, Quoting Thorsten Glaser (2016-01-18 21:16:16) > On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > From a good friend I would expect some more positive feedback > > for my hobby project ;) > I said, it has its niche, but I doubt it has a place > as a generic Debian package… libraries are generally > only packaged when something uses them, and C libra‐ > ries are hard. I'm not good with words so instead I'll quote one of Russ's latest messages: http://lists.debian.org/871t9rlpwf@hope.eyrie.org Mirabilos, You are right that new ports are hard but the biggest influence on others that uploading one more tiny package to Debian has is a small increase in metadata when people apt-get update their system. Why won't you let Waldemar try if his hobby project can work or not? In the worst case it can just stay in unstable and only enter testing after it matured. For all the technical complications you raised in your earlier messages Waldemar is already in good hands, getting help by fellow bootstrappers in #debian-bootstrap and they are in the process of setting up a rebootstrap [1] job for the new port. Waldemar, please don't feel discouraged and lets try and see whether your plan can fly :) cheers, josch [1] https://wiki.debian.org/HelmutGrohne/rebootstrap signature.asc Description: signature
Re: Bug#811275: ITP: uclibc-ng -- uClibc-ng is an implementation of the standard C library that is much smaller than glibc, which makes it useful for embedded systems.
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
> It is a try to build a Debian system with an alternative C library
That would require a new dpkg architecture and other changes,
e.g. you could build for linuxuclibc-i386 instead of linux-i386.
The avr32 people tried to make a µClibc-based Debian port and
eventually failed, because the whole OS is much too dependent
on glibc and GNUisms, and because of the quality…
The other libc ports (Debian/{free,net}bsd (as opposed to
Debian/kFreeBSD), the Interix port, the Minix port, etc.)
also mostly failed – sure, there are or were demonstrations,
but the limitations prevented them from ever taking off.
> > Full disclosure: I do have commits in µClibc-ng.
>
> So you can further help to get stuff going ;)
I’ve already told you I’d prefer to see it die, and the only
thing preventing that is nommu support in more sane libcs.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
[16:04:33] bkix: "veni vidi violini"
[16:04:45] bkix: "ich kam, sah und vergeigte"...
Re: Bug#811275: ITP: uclibc-ng -- uClibc-ng is an implementation of the standard C library that is much smaller than glibc, which makes it useful for embedded systems.
Hi, Thorsten Glaser wrote, > On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > > uClibc-ng is a small C library for developing embedded Linux systems. It is > > much smaller than the GNU C Library, but nearly all applications supported > > by > > glibc also work perfectly with uClibc-ng. > > How is that relevant for a binary distribution in which nothing will > use this package? For cross-compiling, you only need the source code > available. Also, µClibc is of so bad quality that, on MMU targets, > musl is in all cases the better alternative. It is a try to build a Debian system with an alternative C library as Musl or uClibc-ng. More users of uClibc-ng will allow to get the quality better. There is still no support for M68k, MIPS64, ARC or Xtensa. Why not allowing a small Debian distro maybe without systemd to exist? > Full disclosure: I do have commits in µClibc-ng. So you can further help to get stuff going ;) best regards Waldemar
Re: Bug#811275: ITP: uclibc-ng -- uClibc-ng is an implementation of the standard C library that is much smaller than glibc, which makes it useful for embedded systems.
Hi,
Thorsten Glaser wrote,
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
>
> > It is a try to build a Debian system with an alternative C library
>
> That would require a new dpkg architecture and other changes,
> e.g. you could build for linuxuclibc-i386 instead of linux-i386.
>
> The avr32 people tried to make a µClibc-based Debian port and
> eventually failed, because the whole OS is much too dependent
> on glibc and GNUisms, and because of the quality…
>
> The other libc ports (Debian/{free,net}bsd (as opposed to
> Debian/kFreeBSD), the Interix port, the Minix port, etc.)
> also mostly failed – sure, there are or were demonstrations,
> but the limitations prevented them from ever taking off.
>
> > > Full disclosure: I do have commits in µClibc-ng.
> >
> > So you can further help to get stuff going ;)
>
> I’ve already told you I’d prefer to see it die, and the only
> thing preventing that is nommu support in more sane libcs.
>From a good friend I would expect some more positive feedback
for my hobby project ;)
May be you should start to contact Rob Landley, he also wants
to see uClibc/uClibc-ng die. You could start a new project together,
how to kill uClibc/uClibc-ng project. What do you think about it? SCNR.
best regards
Waldemar
Re: Bug#811275: ITP: uclibc-ng -- uClibc-ng is an implementation of the standard C library that is much smaller than glibc, which makes it useful for embedded systems.
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > From a good friend I would expect some more positive feedback > for my hobby project ;) I said, it has its niche, but I doubt it has a place as a generic Debian package… libraries are generally only packaged when something uses them, and C libra‐ ries are hard. bye, //mirabilos -- Yes, I hate users and I want them to suffer. -- Marco d'Itri on gmane.linux.debian.devel.general
