On 10/10/2011 14.05, u-uclibc-y...@aetey.se wrote: > Hi Carmelo, > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:21:24PM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: >> I could agree with you, but one of the big concerns I often see (even in >> the embedded world) with customers when trying to pushing them to >> migrate fro a glibc based system to uClibc is about "compatibility" in >> the most extended meaning. This is just one example. >> >> I'm strongly convinced that this is key in supporting the adoption of >> uClibc vs glibc. > > Unfortunately it makes uClibc become slightly more similar to glibc > in size and complexity, too. >
the powerful of uClibc is that it is highly configurable, so just build what you need. > I agree though that compatibility with [de-facto standards like] glibc > is useful. Thus, indeed, why not let ldd do some extra stuff when this > does not cost too much. > which one ? printing the path is looking for ? > Regards, > Rune > carmelo > _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
