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That's some years out of date and can be summarised as: advantage is a |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 |