On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:02:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru> writes: > > Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> I googled a bit and found this old mail about a klibc only initramfs: > >> > >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2006/07/msg00400.html > >> > >> I would really like to do this and it has been close to 4 years since > >> that mail. But it doesn't look like there has been much progress or not > >> in the right direction. Looking at my initramfs I see:
[...] > >> Could we build stripped down versions of those tools (and libs as > >> required) build against klibc? I certainly see no need for ncurses in my > >> initramfs. Building a klibc based initramfs that then includes libc6 > >> (and even busybox) as well seems rather stupid. One without klibc would > >> be smaller then. > > > > May I ask this question the other way around: > > > > Why maintain two sets of tools and libraries while one set is more > > than enough already? Why we need/want klibc to start with, while > > regular glibc and regular tools do the work just fine? [...] > The reason would be size. I don't see anything else there. How about another idea: take advantage of our switch to eglibc and offer a stripped-down (no i18n, unicode, funky string handling, whatever) flavour of glibc which could be used in place for this. Another use-case might be the udeb for debian-installer (though I guess i18n is important there). Maybe this has been pondered already or maybe it is already in place, CCing -glibc. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100220122448.gb21...@nighthawk.chemicalconnection.dyndns.org
