Dietlibc is the first thing that came off the top of my head, I have no idea
how well it is or if it's maintained. There's no reason not to use uclibc.
Excerpts from Jacob Todd's message of Fri Oct 08 01:24:55 +0200 2010:
> Glibc has been like that for a while. Use dietlibc if you want to actually
> link statically.
I heard from different sources that dietlibc sucks and is not very
well-maintained (not sure if those rumours are true though)
Why n
Glibc has been like that for a while. Use dietlibc if you want to actually
link statically.
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:22 PM, pancake wrote:
> Thats not new. 9base build isbroken in arch for about a while. Last glibc is
> stupid
You say it as if the previous glibc's were not stupid, they just
somehow managed to make the latest glibc even *more* stupid than it
was already, i'm sure they
Thats not new. 9base build isbroken in arch for about a while. Last glibc is
stupid
On 07/10/2010, at 21:52, "John A. Grahor" wrote:
> Here's just another example of the evils of glibc.
>
> I was linking an executable statically on Red Hat Enterprise 5.5 and got this
> message:
>
> warning:
Here's just another example of the evils of glibc.
I was linking an executable statically on Red Hat Enterprise 5.5 and got this
message:
warning: Using 'gethostbyname' in statically linked applications requires at
runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
They've
