Issues with LFS glibc-2.3.3 tarball

Robert Connolly cendres at
Wed Feb 11 07:26:29 PST 2004

On February 11, 2004 09:52 am, Ken Moffat wrote:
>  I think uClibc is interesting, but I'm trying to wait for it to settle
> down a bit more.  Busybox is good when you need it, but in my opinion
> it's a bit sparse (on your development platform). 

Busybox's ash would take advantage of the new bootscripts :) Busybox has some 
short comings but they should get fixed eventually.

> The build process is
> quite different, I haven't tried buildroot, but I believe that to get
> anything approaching a "pure" build you might have to build it twice.

I'm reminded of an idea I had to separate the development tools from the 
system. For example, install chap5 to /stage1. In chap6 replace /usr with /
tools. Install a tiny base (busybox) on /, development in /tools, 
applications stay in /usr and /opt. This is friendly to diskless and handheld 
systems that can mount tools and extra apps from network or storage cards. 
Might have uses on workstations too. For stability libc would need to be 
built twice, and if its anything like glibc, to use fpie and ssp properly, it 
would need to be built twice.

>  For the moment, it's a bit remote from LFS itself.

I think its the same thing just with different software.

More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list