| 1 |
On 11/04/2011 23:52, Arkadi Shishlov wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:11:04 +0300, Christopher Friedt |
| 3 |
> <chrisfriedt@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Is anyone interested in having a look yet? I guess I could post it on |
| 5 |
>> gitorious as a layman overlay. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> What is the (long-term) technical advantage to use bionic, compared to |
| 8 |
> glibc and uclibc? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I would like to hear some answers also. Google's top hit is: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
http://codingrelic.geekhold.com/2008/11/six-million-dollar-libc.html |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
That's some years out of date and can be summarised as: advantage is a |
| 16 |
bsd licence versus an lgpl licence. Also some speedup due to dropping |
| 17 |
support for c++ exceptions. Also in 2008 there was no TLS in uclibc |
| 18 |
(seems quite mature at least in current uclibc git) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This does raise a good point - can "we" really work on getting uclibc |
| 22 |
next release out and stabilised as quickly as possible? It's a massive |
| 23 |
improvement over prior releases and even the unreleased git should |
| 24 |
become everyone's version of choice right now (for a certain definition |
| 25 |
of everyone). On x86 a very large proportion of software now compiles |
| 26 |
without obvious problems |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I'm using a trivial bump of the in tree ebuild to grab the current git |
| 29 |
uclibc and very pleased with it |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Cheers |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Ed W |
Archives