1 |
On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 19:45, Justin Huff wrote: |
2 |
> > > We're kicking around the idea of creating profile(s) for the systems, |
3 |
> > > which would obviously have the bare minimum for operation and would be |
4 |
> > > using uClibc. |
5 |
> > > |
6 |
> > I'd suggest you use glibc at the moment. A uClibc-based build will be |
7 |
> > incompatible with all the pre-existing binaries. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> I think it's very worthwhile to support both glibc and uclibc (and maybe |
10 |
> dietlibc). Not all embedded systems have very tight space constraints. |
11 |
> I'm working on a system here that I'm going to have 64meg of flash for |
12 |
> the system. I don't need to get all that tight. |
13 |
|
14 |
Ok, well I guess I stated this too absolutely. uClibc is the main libc |
15 |
target, but this is still Gentoo. We're not trying to eliminate |
16 |
people's choice. But making the profile big by making glibc default is |
17 |
a disservice to people who really have resource constraints. So most |
18 |
likely the best thing would be to set uClibc as the default for |
19 |
virtual/glibc (fix the uClibc ebuilds if needed) and put virtual/glibc |
20 |
in the profile. Then the choice will still remain, if glibc is |
21 |
wanted/needed. |
22 |
|
23 |
-- |
24 |
Chris PeBenito |
25 |
<pebenito@g.o> |
26 |
Developer, SELinux |
27 |
Hardened Gentoo Linux |
28 |
Embedded Gentoo Linux |
29 |
|
30 |
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xE6AF9243 |
31 |
Key fingerprint = B0E6 877A 883F A57A 8E6A CB00 BC8E E42D E6AF 9243 |