On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 12:25:16 -0600
Aaron Griffin <aaronmgrif...@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.
Jinks
