On 01/23/2010 08:01 AM, Allan McRae wrote:
On 23/01/10 20:39, Alexander Duscheleit wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:25:16 -0600 Aaron Griffin<aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Did you mean ulibc? No, not uClibc either. We're actually using glibc itself. Other distros do this as well, as it DOES add a lot of flexibility
Just out of curiosity. Was eglibc considered? Why? Why not?
I can see, that maintaing just another libc only for minor space benefits in a short-lived initrd doesn't make a lot of sense, but Debian seems to think, that it could even be an all-out replacement for glibc in general.
There is really no advantage to using eglibc if you are on x86 or x86_64 systems. Debian will find eglibc appealing because they support all sorts of platforms that are not particularly well supported by glibc.
Allan
There is at least one advantage. The build system allows to select groups of functions to compile or not, for example network, ipv6, charsets, locales, maths, wide-chars, regex, nis, and others. But maybe not necessary for initramfs. -- Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera ) http://www.djgera.com.ar KeyID: 0x1B8C330D Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219 76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D