On 1/6/2021 01:08, Thomas Mueller wrote:
>> I was using uclibc-ng builds for MIPS to build netboot images between 2017
>> and 2019 to refine my build processes. uclibc-ng still produces smaller
>> overall binaries and libs for the netboot than musl does (usually ~1MB
>> smaller, which is actually
> I was using uclibc-ng builds for MIPS to build netboot images between 2017
> and 2019 to refine my build processes. uclibc-ng still produces smaller
> overall binaries and libs for the netboot than musl does (usually ~1MB
> smaller, which is actually significant, especially on SGI IP22 systems).
On 1/5/2021 16:05, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
> On 1/5/21 8:43 AM, Jaco Kroon wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> On 2021/01/05 13:08, Thomas Mueller wrote:
I'd like feedback from people about the possibility of dropping support
for uclibc-ng. If you are unfamiliar, its the successor to uclibc as a
from "Anthony G. Basile" date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 16:05:44
-0500
> On 1/5/21 8:43 AM, Jaco Kroon wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > On 2021/01/05 13:08, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> >>> I'd like feedback from people about the possibility of dropping support
> >>> for uclibc-ng. If you are unfamiliar, its the s
On 1/5/21 8:43 AM, Jaco Kroon wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> On 2021/01/05 13:08, Thomas Mueller wrote:
>>> I'd like feedback from people about the possibility of dropping support
>>> for uclibc-ng. If you are unfamiliar, its the successor to uclibc as a
>>> C Standard Library for embedded systems, ie a
Hi Thomas,
On 2021/01/05 13:08, Thomas Mueller wrote:
>> I'd like feedback from people about the possibility of dropping support
>> for uclibc-ng. If you are unfamiliar, its the successor to uclibc as a
>> C Standard Library for embedded systems, ie a replacement for glibc
>> bloat. However, it
> I'd like feedback from people about the possibility of dropping support
> for uclibc-ng. If you are unfamiliar, its the successor to uclibc as a
> C Standard Library for embedded systems, ie a replacement for glibc
> bloat. However, it is inferior to musl which serves the same purpose
> and whi
Hi everyone,
I'd like feedback from people about the possibility of dropping support
for uclibc-ng. If you are unfamiliar, its the successor to uclibc as a
C Standard Library for embedded systems, ie a replacement for glibc
bloat. However, it is inferior to musl which serves the same purpose
and
